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 1841
86th Session, 1999
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Commission is mistaken. The complainants do have a cause of action and may now challenge the new scales because on them will depend the duration of the "freeze" in their pay and the reckoning of any rise they may become entitled to. Pay scales must ordinarily be challenged forthwith. As the Tribunal has said before, if administrative decisions are to hold good and relations between organisation and staff to be stable, no appeal may lie against them at the time of later revision: see, for example, Judgments 1664 [...], 1682 [...], 1780 [...] and the other precedents there given. If someone on a frozen pay scale might wait to challenge the new scales, that would make for great uncertainty.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1664, 1682, 1780
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 1786
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, 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 time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1682
84th Session, 1998
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The decisions taken by the [Organisation] each year on pay fully supersede earlier ones. In entertaining challenges to individual decisions on the complainants' pay [...] the Tribunal will look at the latest decision [...] on pay scales."
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; decision; general decision; individual decision; period; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Association's third objection is that the complainants are challenging the adoption of rules and in any event cannot impute any present injury thereto. According to precedent an international civil servant may in exceptional circumstances challenge the lawfulness of a rule that has been applied to him. The notification to the complainants of the changes in the system of reckoning and paying their retirement pensions constituted individual application of rules adopted by the member States of EFTA and set out in the contract with [a private insurance company]. Even though, as the defendant says, the complainants cannot yet show any injury, they do have a cause of action and may challenge, howsoever they wish, the lawfulness of the new pension rules."
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; executive body; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; pension; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1618
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants, who are permanent officials, object to a change in the Service Regulations which applies to officials under fixed-term appointments. "For the same reasons as those stated in Judgment 1451 the present complaints are receivable. What is at issue is not a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service. Such arrangements take the form of individual implementing decisions that each employee may eventually challenge [...]. What is at issue here is the adoption of rules on the employment of contract staff that may have indirect effects on the status of permanent employees as to their pay - if they have to bear a heavier financial burden - or as to their indirect involvement in the framing of EPO policy" as members of advisory bodies.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; exception; fixed-term; general decision; individual decision; permanent appointment; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1603
82nd Session, 1997
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The International Civil Service Commission "may make recommendations for aligning conditions of service in the common system and may decide on the methods of determining them. Yet the staff may still challenge any action by that body, independent though it be of the organisation that employs them. [...] So the complainants may challenge the lawfulness of the Commission's method [...] even though the FAO has done no more than fall in line."
Keywords:
complaint; coordinated organisations; general decision; icsc decision; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; rule of another organisation; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1601
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already held - for example, in Judgment 1081 [...] under 4 - the mere fact that a decision affects a category of staff and is therefore a general one does preclude challenge. To quote Article VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute], which is about the time limits, a complainant may challenge 'a decision affecting a class of officials'. Yet not every complaint that challenges a general decision will be receivable. The complainant must comply with the requirement in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute that internal remedies be first exhausted. In keeping with that rule and with precedent - for example Judgment 1134 [...] under 4 - 'a complaint will be irreceivable if it challenges a general decision that must ordinarily be put into effect by individual decisions against which internal appeal will lie'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1081, 1134
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1520
81st Session, 1996
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The general decisions which the Assembly and Executive Council of the WTO took and which came into effect as announced in the circular affect the complainants' right to legal status in line with the common system, particularly as to the amounts of end-of-service entitlements, notice of dismissal and the general rules on retirement pensions. None of those provisions - some of which have indeed been dropped - directly infringes any of the rights that the complainants are asserting. They may, if they so wish, properly challenge any individual decision that applies to the provisions. Insofar as they are challenging the circular their complaints are therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; coordinated organisations; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a "decision refusing their claim to a promise from the Organization to preserve the rights they had under the old Staff Regulations and Rules. Any decisions that may be taken to give effect to the general rules will be challengeable provided that there is some actual dispute for the Tribunal to rule on. Here there is none. The complainants cite no individual decision that causes them injury. They may not contrive such dispute by seeking promises from the Organization."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1510
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An international civil servant may not ordinarily impugn a general rule that does not affect himself. Yet he may challenge any individual decision that does him injury; in so doing he may support his claims with any plea he likes; and he may thus plead breach of some general principle or of a written rule or clause of his contract that constitutes a term of appointment." The complainants are "just as free to plead flaws in the material rules as any mistakes of law or fact in assessing the peculiarities of their own position."
Keywords:
breach; cause of action; complaint; contract; general decision; general principle; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The [amendment in question] strikes out of the terms of employment ipso facto the safeguard of international judicial review and vests jurisdiction in municipal courts instead. The amendment brings about an immediate and almost irreversible change in the system of appeal. So [...] every staff member has an actual and present interest in having light shed on the matter. The Tribunal affords guarantees of a system of international law within the bounds of its competence: see Judgments 1265, under 24, and 1328, under 13. It would therefore be wrong to deny the staff the right of appeal on the grounds that the impugned decision is general in purport."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1265, 1328
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; general decision; internal appeal; municipal court; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"The [organisation pleads] that to quash a general decision on an application from a few might damage the interests of others who wanted it to remain in force. The plea is certainly material since [...] the staff of the UPU seem to disagree about the amendment [in question]. But the Tribunal is satisfied that when a decision has been challenged, albeit by only a few, it has a duty to rule in full objectivity and as soon as possible. The Union itself has well defended the interests of those who want to keep the decision, and they themselves may do so by filing applications to intervene."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; application for quashing; complaint; general decision; intervention; receivability of the complaint; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1442
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The EPO pleads that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that theinternal appeal came too long after the announcement of the disputed measure and the general decision to apply it to the staff. "The objection cannot be sustained. What the complainant is impugning is not those general decisions but theapplication of them to himself which would be the consequence of the EPO's holding to its - in his view mistaken - interpretation of them."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1393
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason of public policy why an organisation should not entertain a claim, even when it is premature, pending the notification of an individual decision. That is the approach that the EPO took when, instead of warning the complainant forthwith that his appeal was premature, it entertained his claims - just as it entertained all the others - and forwarded them, after what it described as preliminary study, to the Appeals Committee. So it was in breach of good faith in objecting to receivability before the Committee at a time when the time limits set off by its individual decisions had already run out. The Tribunal accordingly holds that under the circumstances the complainant is right to plead that he was caught in a procedural trap."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; date; general decision; good faith; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1279, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1279
Keywords:
case law; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1368
77th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"For the reasons given in Judgment 1329, under 6, the complainants may not directly seek the quashing of the Council's decision [...]. They may, however, challenge the individual decisions in their pay slips [...] by pleading the unlawfulness of the [Council's decision] and the infringement of any acquired rights they lay claim to under rules or contract."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329
Keywords:
acquired right; application for quashing; breach; contract; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1329
76th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1279
75th Session, 1993
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The purpose of time limits is to make for the stability in law that both sides require. Management has an interest in knowing that the decisions it takes are beyond challenge; and the staff too need to know, especially when administrative action is taken at successive stages from the general to the particular, just when they may act without fear of having their suit rejected as premature or time-barred."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1265
75th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 1000, under 12, the Tribunal held that "when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one". The complainants may therefore challenge "the lawfulness of any measure taken by the Commission that serves as the basis for the decisions affecting them, whatever method may have been adopted to import it into the organization's own rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complainant; decision; decision-maker; general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; judicial review;
Judgment 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant objects to the refusal by Eurocontrol's Sickness Fund of her claim to the refund of costs incurred for treatment. The organisation notified this decision to her by an office memorandum and it constituted an individual decision. "The organisation [...] has wide discretion in the matter and may exercise it as it sees fit for the purpose of ensuring the efficiency and financial soundness of its fund. There is more than one legal procedure it may resort to. It may adopt general rules [...] or else it may take individual decisions on particular cases."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; discretion; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses;
Judgment 1134
72nd Session, 1992
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In keeping with precedent and with [Article] VII(1) [of the Statute] a complaint will be irreceivable if it challenges a general decision that must ordinarily be put into effect by individual decisions against which internal appeal will lie."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
administrative instruction; condition; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
