General decision (33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 145
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;
Consideration 31
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law is clear that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see Judgment 2953, under 2). And, it is equally clear that a complainant may challenge the lawfulness of a general decision forming the legal basis of the individual decision which the complainant is seeking to have quashed (see Judgment 2793, under 13, and Judgment 3428, under 11, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2793, 2953, 3428
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; lack of injury;
Judgment 3408
119th Session, 2015
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the decision to apply to them a salary adjustment index they considered illegal.
Considerations 8 and 9
Extract:
The next contention of the complainants is that there is a clear principle that any methodology of adjustment of, amongst other things, salaries must ensure that the results are “stable, foreseeable and clearly understood”, referring to Judgment 1265, consideration 27, and Judgment 1821, consideration 7. They contend that this principle has been violated, at least in the sense that a methodology yielding a negative salary adjustment could not be “clearly understood” and, presumably, was not clearly understood. The complainants refer to the fact that the Finance Committee meeting in November 2011 was in a restricted session and that the Staff Association was not given access to the minutes of that meeting and that of the Council of December 2011. In the brief the concluding submission is that “the Staff Association, through its representatives, and consequently the complainants, were not informed of all the data behind the Council’s decision and consequently, could not understand the results arrived at”. However the die was cast and the method of computation established by the decision of the Tripartite Group at its meeting of 8 March 2011 to recommend, as the minutes record, “[the application of] an exact adjustment for the year 2011 [of minus 1.5 per cent] to the 2012 salary adjustment calculation”. It is true that the minutes also record concerns about the quality of the data input, the availability of the data and its (the methodology’s) retroactive changes. However, insofar as the adjustment of minus 1.5 per cent is concerned, there was, after March 2011, ample opportunity for the representatives of the staff to consult with the Administration about the calculation of the minus 1.5 per cent. Moreover, the jurisprudence the complainants rely on concerns methodology, not the minutiae of particular data used when applying the methodology. The real grievance is with the result, namely a reduction in salaries and other emoluments. That is not to say that data is always immune from challenge. Indeed, the complainants seek to challenge data on the third basis identified earlier.
The challenge to the data is based on the principle, as described in the brief, that “international organisations are bound under law to check that the decision of an external authority is legal, before incorporating it within their own legal order”. The complainants refer to Judgments 382, consideration 6, 825, consideration 18, 1000, consideration 12, 1265, considerations 21 and 24, 1713, consideration 3, 2303, consideration 7, and 2420, consideration 11.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1000, 1265, 1265, 1713, 1821, 2303, 2420
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; salary;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that allowing a complaint against a general decision which does not directly and immediately affect the
complainant but which may have a direct negative effect on her/him in the future, would cause an unreasonable restriction of the right of defence, as staff members would then have to impugn immediately all general decisions which may have any connection with their future interests, on the basis that a general decision which is not challenged within the established time becomes immune from challenge. On this approach, once a general decision is considered immune, any complaint impugning the subsequent decision implementing it could not challenge the lawfulness of the underlying general decision. Considering this, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the approach illustrated by the recent case law (Judgments 2822 and 3146) is to be followed. According to that 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2822, 3146
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3146
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is well settled that a staff member who challenges an individual decision may, at the same time and in the same internal appeal, challenge the related underlying decision. Thus, it was said in Judgment 1786, under 5, in relevant part:
“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 timebarred.”
Similarly, it was said in Judgment 1329, under 7, in relevant part:
“Firm precedent has it – see for example Judgment 1000 […] – that an international civil servant may, in challenging a decision that affects him directly, plead the unlawfulness of any general measure that affords the basis for it in law. The indisputable basis in law for the individual decisions challenged in this case is the Council’s decision of 20 December 1991 setting the rate of the rise in staff pay for 1992. The conclusion is that the complainants may plead the unlawfulness of the Council’s decision.”
It follows from what was said in Judgments 1786 and 1329 that, if an individual decision is set aside because of the unlawfulness of the underlying decision, the latter must also be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1329, 1786
Keywords:
general decision;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although Judgment 1601, under 10 and 11, allows that “a complainant may challenge ‘a decision affecting a class of officials’”, it does not follow that an official may pursue separate appeals with respect to a decision of that kind and individual decisions affecting him that are based on a decision of the former kind. It is a general principle of law that a person may not submit the same matter for decision in more than one proceeding. Particularly is that so if separate proceedings are brought before separate bodies. That principle applies both in relation to original proceedings and appellate proceedings. As the complainant purported to lodge separate appeals before separate bodies, it was necessary for one of the appellate bodies to defer to the other. As the Administrative Council could not determine the appeal with respect to the individual decisions affecting the complainant, it was incumbent on it to defer to the President of the Office and the Internal Appeals Committee, as they, and only they, have jurisdiction to determine all aspects of the complainant’s appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Administrative Council to refer the complainant’s appeals to the President and the Internal Appeals Committee involved no error of law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1601
Keywords:
general decision; parallel proceedings;
Judgment 3054
112th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint dismissed; contract; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 2952
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him. Nor does he claim that the Agency has infringed his rights as a member of the Staff Committee. [...] Further, he does not claim to have suffered any loss, damage or other injury, and does not point to any decision affecting him directly or which would have legal consequences for him individually. Thus, he has not established any cause of action [...] or raised any matter that may be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2822
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In 2006 Eurocontrol approved a revision of the conditions of employment which redefined the functions and grades of Flight Data Operators. The complainant seeks, inter alia, renegotiated employment conditions and the award of temporary B4 grades to all Flight Data Operators.
"[The] Tribunal cannot entertain the complainant's claim that all Flight Data Operators should be granted B4 grades [...]. [The] complainant alleges no breach of his employment conditions or of the applicable Staff Rules or Regulations. And as pointed out in Judgment 1852, 'a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2793
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law certainly allows any complainant incidentally to challenge the lawfulness of a general decision forming the legal basis of the individual decision which he or she is seeking to have quashed (see Judgments 1000, 1451, 2129 and 2410, or indeed [...] Judgments 2615 and 2655), and the lawfulness of this general decision may be challenged on the grounds that it was taken pursuant to another decision which was itself unlawful (see for a similar case Judgment 1265, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1265, 1451, 2129, 2410, 2615, 2655
Keywords:
exception; general decision;
Judgment 2625
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2420
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Association of Professional Staff has submitted an amicus curiae brief. Although the possibility of gathering the observations of an association or union representing staff interests is not envisaged under its Statute, the Tribunal considers that it can only be beneficial to extend that possibility, as do other international administrative tribunals, to associations and unions wishing to defend the rights of the staff members whom they represent in the context of disputes concerning decisions affecting the staff as a whole or a specific category of staff members. Indeed, the Organization has raised no objection to the Tribunal's examination of the submissions in question, which are not, however, to be equated with the brief of an intervener, and which are simply intended to clarify certain points raised by the complaints with the Tribunal."
Keywords:
amicus curiae; general decision; icsc decision; iloat statute; intervention; staff union;
Judgment 2410
98th Session, 2005
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[M]onthly pension payments are not notified individually except when pensioners are informed of decisions concerning the rate of adjustment decided by CERN's competent bodies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that, while the bank statement does not constitute a decision, it does reflect a decision taken to credit the complainant's account and, just like a payslip, this decision may be challenged by all legal means."
Keywords:
adjustment; date of notification; decision; general decision; individual decision; payslip; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint; salary;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[I]t is CERN's Council which decides pension adjustments; and the individual decisions on pension rates have as their sole legal basis the general decisions taken periodically by CERN's Council, the lawfulness of which may indeed be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against such individual decisions (see Judgments 1000, 1451 and 2129). In this case, the complainant's objections concern only the lawfulness of the position advocated by the Governing Board of the Pension Fund, when it considered that it could not give its backing to the extraordinary pension adjustment requested by the [CERN Pensioners' Association, of which the complainant is the President]. Since this refusal to support the latter's request before CERN's competent bodies cannot be considered as a legislative act of general application, any pleas based on its alleged unlawfulness must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article II.1.15 of the Regulations of the CERN's Pension Fund
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1451, 2129
Keywords:
adjustment; advisory opinion; cern pension fund; decision; executive body; general decision; individual decision; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"A general decision which establishes the obligations and/or rights of a group of officials, without requiring an implementing decision, may be directly challenged; one example of this would be a decision concerning an electronic clocking-in system (see Judgment 2279 [...]). However, such a decision is not challengeable if its terms are not sufficiently clear in themselves to allow a challenge (see Judgment 2258, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2258, 2279
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; general decision; individual decision; official; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
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 2089
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complaint attacks a decision [...] amending Article 36 of the [organisation]'s Pension Scheme rules. While the Tribunal cannot grant the claim for quashing that amended article and the complaint is, to that extent, irreceivable, the Tribunal will treat it as a complaint against the application of the amended article in breach of the complainants' acquired rights."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 36 OF THE EMBL'S PENSION SCHEME RULES
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; impugned decision; pension; receivability of the complaint;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
