Impugned decision (651, 33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Impugned decision
Total judgments found: 59
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4276
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisal under the new merit recognition system established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a general decision which requires individual implementation cannot be challenged directly; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgments 3628, under 4, 3736, under 3, 4008, under 3, and 4119, under 4, and the case law cited therein). The lawfulness of the general decision may only be challenged as part of the challenge to the individual decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4008, 4119
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4203
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests, inter alia, his reinstatement to his former post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the difference between this complaint and the previously filed one lies in the fact that it is directed to the present rather than the former President of the EPO. Complaints filed against a final decision are made against the Organisation and not against the particular person who took the decision. Therefore, the change in President from time to time has no effect on the decisions taken prior to the change or on any judgments which regarded such decisions.
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4195
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the established case law, all requests for review of individual decisions taken by the President must be lodged with and decided by the President. In the present cases, the challenged general decisions had to be implemented by individual decisions taken by the President of the Office. Accordingly, all requests for review had to be lodged with the President. Therefore, the appeals lodged with the Administrative Council were lawfully referred to the President for consideration (see Judgment 3700, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4147
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to retain his candidature for a post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgment 2092, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4125
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that UNESCO disclosed confidential information concerning him to the press without his authorization.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant appears to believe that, because as a former official he does not have access to the internal appeal mechanism, he is entitled to come directly before the Tribunal in order to assert a claim against his former employer without having first sought a decision on the matter from UNESCO. The complainant is mistaken. The provisions of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal make it clear that a complaint must be directed against a decision of the defendant organisation, whether express or implied. This requirement applies equally to serving and former officials, notwithstanding that the latter may be excluded by the staff regulations from pursuing internal appeals, as is the case in UNESCO. Indeed, it is obvious that the organisation must be given an opportunity to address the claims and allegations of a former official before being compelled to participate in judicial proceedings.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; former official; impugned decision; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4113
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4104
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4082
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade.
Consideration 2
Extract:
This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 27 April 2016, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to dismiss his internal complaint of 28 January 2015 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision of 4 August 2014 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. How extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see Judgments 1817, consideration 6, and 3617, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant filed the present complaints with the Tribunal before the related proceedings before the Appeals Committee were concluded. The Appeals Committee subsequently issued reports on the appeals and the Director-General took final decisions on the complainant’s second and third appeals on 20 April and 29 May 2017, respectively. The parties have had the opportunity to provide submissions on the final decisions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will consider the second and third complaints as directed against the Director-General’s final decisions of 20 April 2017 and 29 May 2017, respectively.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; impugned decision;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Appeals Board did express an opinion on the complainant’s pleas concerning [...], it did not, however, mention the many other pleas of a procedural nature raised by the complainant. [...] Thus, the Appeals Board did not examine all of the complainant’s pleas. In addition, the Director-General did not address those pleas in her decision of 2 August 2016 either. Accordingly, the right of the complainant to an effective internal appeal was denied. The decision impugned is thus unlawful, which justifies it being set aside.
Keywords:
impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 4062
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4046
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for an invalidity allowance.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction concerns, relevantly, the non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations. In the present case, the complainant would have been entitled to the payment of an invalidity allowance in the event that the Medical Committee determined he suffered from invalidity. The legal right or benefit arising under the Service Regulations was the payment of that allowance. In circumstances where payment of the allowance should have been made but was not, there has been a non-observance of the Service Regulations challengeable before the Tribunal. Plainly enough, as part of that challenge, the anterior determination of the Medical Committee can be challenged because it is foundational to the decision of the President to refuse to pay the allowance. But that does not render the determination of the Medical Committee a final decision for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, in principle, it would be open to the President to reject the opinion of the Medical Committee if she or he discerned some reviewable error on the part of the Medical Committee. The Medical Committee’s determination is a decision that constitutes a step towards the making of the final administrative decision amenable to challenge in the Tribunal (see Judgment 3433, consideration 9).
In some circumstances, the Tribunal has treated a challenge to what has been identified in the complaint as a decision but, in fact, was an anterior step to the challengeable final administrative decision, as a challenge to the final administrative decision itself. An example is found in Judgment 2715. In that case the Tribunal sought to identify what was intended by the complainant and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. This course is not open to the Tribunal in the present case. That is because the EPO in the reply explicitly and clearly raises the issue of the receivability of a complaint challenging a “decision” of the Medical Committee. Notwithstanding, the complainant explicitly and clearly adheres in the rejoinder to the position that this was what was being challenged, namely the “decision” of the Medical Committee. In these circumstances, there is no proper basis for imputing to the complainant an intention to challenge the decision of the President of 11 June 2012.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 3433
Keywords:
express decision; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4018
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[The] complaint, which was initially directed against an implied rejection of the internal complaint which [the complainant] had filed against this measure, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision adopted on 28 January 2015, in the course of proceedings, by which the Director General dismissed this internal complaint as unfounded (see, for example, Judgments 3667, under 1, or 3925, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667, 3925
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; impugned 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 3
Extract:
The complaint, though initially directed against an implied rejection of an internal complaint, should now be viewed as challenging the express decision taken during the present proceedings, on 13 December 2016 (see, in particular, Judgment 3667, under 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4011
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 1
Extract:
In the impugned decision [...] the Director-General did not accept [the] recommendations. He fully explained the reasons for not doing so as the Tribunal’s case law requires (see, for example, Judgment 3968, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3968
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation;
Judgment 3994
126th Session, 2018
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges CERN’s refusal to recognise the illness from which she says she suffers as occupational.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] that when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgment 2092, under 10).
In this case, the Director-General followed the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. In accordance with the principle cited above, she was not obliged to engage in any “further questioning”, despite what the complainant maintains.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3942
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the complaint form filed with the Tribunal, the complainant identifies this opinion and recommendation of the Appeals Board, having regard to the date of decision identified on the form, as the impugned decision. [...] It appears, from the material before the Tribunal, that no decision was made by the Director-General following, and based upon, the Appeals Board report in the period of a little over three months between the issuing of the Appeals Board report and the filing of the complaint in the Tribunal. However, UNESCO does not challenge the receivability of the complaint in these proceedings, which can be taken to be an agreement that the matter can be dealt with by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint form; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
A defendant organisation in proceedings before the Tribunal should not ordinarily be permitted to maintain a factual and legal position which is diametrically opposite to the position earlier accepted to be the case and foundational to the impugned decision which the organisation is defending, unless it involves a concession, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, favourable to the complainant.
Keywords:
impugned decision; reply;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3829
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complaint, which was initially directed against an implied rejection, must be regarded as impugning the explicit decision [...].
Keywords:
impugned decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
