Step in the procedure (743,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Step in the procedure
Total judgments found: 42
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4556
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks to be provided with a copy of his old medical file.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks the setting aside of the IAC’s opinion. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). It follows that this request is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4477
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation in lieu of notice of termination of appointment for reasons of health and the reimbursement of the days of annual leave he alleges that he had accrued before that termination.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the complainant’s claim that the Appeal Board report of 2 February 2018, on which the impugned decision of 3 April 2018 is based, be set aside on account of a formal flaw [...] the Tribunal observes that an opinion issued by an appeal body is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a decision on the appeal which does not itself cause injury to the complainant. Claims against it are therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4392
Keywords:
impugned decision; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4475
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the handling of her grievance complaint.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the complaint is irreceivable, as the impugned decision is not a final one. Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. The Tribunal’s case law distinguishes between final decisions and other procedural steps leading to a final decision. Ordinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final one. They may not be attacked directly before the Tribunal, but they may be impugned as part of a challenge to the final decision (see, for example, Judgments 2366, consideration 16, 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3860, considerations 5 and 6, 3958, consideration 15, and 3961, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3860, 3958, 3961
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4466
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a first formal written warning of unsatisfactory performance and to initiate the procedure for addressing unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In consideration 8 of Judgment 3967 the Tribunal held that the warning letter issued in that case (which was similar to that issued to the complainant in the present case) was not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report. Based on this case law, the complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure; warning;
Judgment 4464
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s refusal to recognise the illness from which he states he suffers as service-incurred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]here is no reason to set aside the board’s report, which is merely a preparatory step that does not in itself cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 4118, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118
Keywords:
internal procedure; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4461
133rd Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the suspension decision as well as the decision to remove him from his duties had, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the complainant, and were not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must themselves be challenged (see, for example, Judgments 1927, consideration 5, 2365, consideration 4, 3035, consideration 10, and 4237, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035, 4237
Keywords:
impugned decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 4404
132nd Session, 2021
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).
In this case, the email [...], the sole purpose of which was to invite the complainant to submit documents deemed necessary by the organisation’s services so that the deductions could be reimbursed, was merely a step in preparation for the decision that would ultimately be taken as to the payment of the sums in question. That email cannot therefore be construed as constituting a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be impugned before the Tribunal (for a similar case involving a request for the production of supporting documents required for the examination of an application for financial benefits, see Judgment 3876, considerations 4 and 5).
It follows that the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4319
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the designation of his reporting and countersigning officers for a staff report.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he “decision” of 23 January 2014 [i.e. the communication concerning his reporting and countersigning officers] which the complainant seeks to challenge was not a challengeable decision. It was a mere step towards what eventually may have become a challengeable decision. The CRU was therefore right to reject it on this ground.
Keywords:
step in the procedure;
Judgment 4297
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant suggests he would have been prejudiced by advice he said he received from the OPCW that his challenges to the appointment of the investigators did not involve a reviewable administrative decision and thus, it is said, he waived the right to file a complaint before the Tribunal in relation to the decision concerning the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. The submission fails to recognise that a decision concerning the composition of an investigating panel is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision and may, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the final decision (see, for example, Judgment 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4131
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the President of the Office to reject his appeal against the referral of his case to the Appeals Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complaint is irreceivable. Although the complainant has formally exhausted the internal means of redress available to him, his internal appeal was directed against what was merely a step in the process which would culminate in a final decision on his appeal. According to the case law, the steps leading to a final decision can be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning that final decision (see, for example, Judgment 3961, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein; Judgment 3958, consideration 15; and Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860, 3958, 3961
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 2
Extract:
With respect to the claims directed against the “decision” of the Medical Committee [...], the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such,cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office [...]. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee [...].
Keywords:
final decision; internal procedure; step in the procedure;
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 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 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he warning letter provided for in Section A(6) of Circular No. 246 is not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report (see Judgments 3806, consideration 6, 3697, consideration 5, 3629, consideration 3, 3512, consideration 3, and 3433, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697, 3806
Keywords:
decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that procedures may include many steps which lead to a final, impugnable decision, but those steps cannot be challenged separately. To allow otherwise would open procedures to a senseless and paralysing number of individual appeals that would serve no useful purpose (see Judgments 3876, under 5, 3700, under 14, 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3959
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to instruct the President of the Office to ensure the immediate return to him of his USB memory stick seized by the EPO Investigative Unit.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ‘[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.’” (See Judgment 3958, under 15.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he decision regarding the house ban, as well as the suspension decision, even if they are essentially interim measures to safeguard the investigation, have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered mere steps to the final decision of the proceeding. As such, the request for review of these decisions was receivable [...].
Keywords:
decision; measure of distraint; step in the procedure; suspension;
Consideration 15
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.” (See Judgment 2366, under 16, confirmed in Judgments 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3.) Accordingly, the complainant’s claims related to the investigative procedure and the various acts adopted by the Investigative Unit and by its Chief are merely steps in the proceedings that cannot adversely affect the complainant until a final decision has been taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512
Keywords:
final decision; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3893
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was suffering from invalidity, impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal against the decision to remit his case to the Medical Committee.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he decision to remit the case to a Medical Committee after the expert had renounced her mandate was merely a step in the procedure leading to a final decision on that question. As such, it did not in itself constitute a challengeable decision, though it could be challenged in the context of an appeal directed against the final decision on the cause of the complainant’s invalidity (see, for example, Judgment 2366, under 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366
Keywords:
step in the procedure;
Judgment 3890
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant cannot challenge a measure which is only a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see, for example, Judgments 2366, consideration 16, and 3198, consideration 13). The Tribunal re-affirmed this approach recently in Judgment 3713, in consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713
Keywords:
step in the procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
