|
|
 |
|
|
Impugned decision (651, 33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Impugned decision
Total judgments found: 59
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 3828
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, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme 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;
Judgment 3796
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for review of the EPO Administrative Council's decision CA/D 10/14 introducing a new career system, on which the final decision was taken by the Administrative Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; impugned decision;
Judgment 3785
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his request for review of an EPO notice concerning patent applications, having regard to the composition of the Appeals Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; impugned decision;
Judgment 3740
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the legality of changes to the FAO General Service category staff salary scale consequent to the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t must be observed that, according to the documents that have been presented to the Tribunal, the recommendations in the relevant ICSC decisions were limited to and only established two things: a revised salary scale for the GS category in Rome and revised levels for dependency allowances. The recommendations were silent with respect to all of the other matters dealt with in the 25 January 2013 Administrative Circular. […]As the record shows, none of these measures were mandated by or derived from the new ICSC salary scale or dependency allowance recommendations or were necessary for their implementation. Out of a number of possible options for the implementation of the recommendations, these are the measures FAO decided to adopt. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the interim adjustment freeze or the break in service and reappointment salary consequences were derived from the ICSC’s allegedly illegal decision and were not measures that the FAO decided to adopt as options for implementation of the ICSC recommendations.
Keywords:
icsc decision; impugned decision; salary;
Judgment 3739
123rd Session, 2017
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges changes to the IFAD General Service Staff salary scale as a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; icsc decision; impugned decision; salary;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t must be observed that, according to the documents that have been presented to the Tribunal, the recommendations in the relevant ICSC decisions were limited to and only established two things: a revised salary scale for the GS category in Rome and revised levels for dependency allowances, the latter not being in issue in this proceeding. The revised salary scale recommendation was silent with respect to all of the other matters dealt with in the 31 January 2013 President’s Bulletin. In particular, it did not deal with setting an implementation date; the application of the revised salary scale to only certain staff members; or the freezing of interim adjustments for staff appointed prior to 1 February 2013. As the record shows, none of these measures were explicitly mandated by the revised ICSC salary scale recommendation. Out of several possible options for the implementation of the recommendation, these are the measures IFAD decided to adopt. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the interim adjustment freeze was derived from the ICSC’s allegedly illegal decision and that it was not a measure that IFAD decided to adopt from among options for implementation of the ICSC recommendation.
Keywords:
icsc decision; impugned decision; salary;
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 4
Extract:
[T]he ITU’s argument that the complainants’ claims are irreceivable in respect of the decisions – evidenced by their pensions slips – to deduct higher insurance premiums from their pensions, must be rejected since these decisions do indeed constitute individual decisions implementing Service Order No. 14/10. […], they are therefore open to appeal.
Keywords:
impugned decision; payslip;
Judgment 3505
120th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her sick leave entitlement beyond the date on which her appointment expired.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The fact that th[e] decision was not evidenced by a written document does not prevent recognition of its existence, as the Tribunal’s case law has it that an administrative decision may take any form, provided that its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken (see, in particular, Judgments 2573, under 8, 2629, under 6, and 3141, under 21)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2573, 2629, 3141
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 3407
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]s the complainant took care in his rejoinder to impugn, “if appropriate”, the aforementioned express decision [...] which had been taken in the meantime, the complaint must be deemed to be directed against that decision (see, for a similar precedent, Judgment 3356, under 15 and 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356
Keywords:
express decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 3356
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the transfer of his pension rights acquired under a national scheme to the Organisation’s pension scheme, the complainant successfully challenges the refusal to recalculate the number of pensionable years credited to him.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[B]y an express decision [...], the Director General subsequently dismissed the complainant’s internal complaint after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued a divided opinion. As the complainant took care in his rejoinder to impugn this express decision, the complaint must be deemed to be directed against it."
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 3208
115th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042
Keywords:
bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is justified in requesting the setting aside of a decision accepting the Board’s recommendations which has not been implemented."
Keywords:
decision; final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complaint incorrectly states that it seeks the setting aside of the 'Organization's decision of 5 July 2004' to end the complainant's employment contract, whereas the Secretary General's decision to that effect is in fact dated 10 August 2004, and 5 July 2004 is the date of the Administration Committee's opinion, which is not challengeable. However, the complainant's intention, which must be ascertained without taking into account this purely factual error, was plainly to challenge the Secretary General's decision of 10 August 2004."
Keywords:
complainant; impugned decision;
Judgment 2699
104th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that when rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeals body that favours a complainant, the final decision-maker must give clear and cogent reasons for such a decision (see Judgments 2092, 2261, 2347 and 2355)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; recommendation; refusal;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
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 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"In taking the decision which is now under challenge the Director-General gave no reasons himself. He did not say that he based his decision on the [Joint Appeals] Board's report and recommendation. [...] Assuming that he did rely on the Board's report, the Tribunal is satisfied that in view of the contradictory statements of the Board and the unorthodox way in which they conducted their enquiry, the complainant was not accorded due process and accordingly the impugned decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation;
Judgment 1680
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization "cites the ruling in Judgment 1394 [...] that there is no question of 'quashing a decision that no longer exists and therefore has no effect in law'. But the precedent holds good only where the decision impugned has been retroactively withdrawn and has had no effect in law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1394
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot; effect; impugned decision; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 173
26th Session, 1971
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[A]n organization may not submit a complaint to the Tribunal nor [...] claims for the modification of the impugned decision to the prejudice of the complainant." It may simply propose that the original complaint be dismissed in whole or in part. "Consequently, the organization's claims in the present case are irreceivable to the extent that they relate to the reduction of the complainant's pension."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 141
Keywords:
claim; counterclaim; impugned decision; locus standi; pension; reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
