Step in the procedure (743,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Step in the procedure
Total judgments found: 42

< previous | 1, 2, 3

• Judgment 3876

  
  124th Session, 2017
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.

  Consideration 5

  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, 3512, under 3, and 3700, under 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700
  

  Keywords:

  final decision; step in the procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3806

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his appeal against a warning letter concerning his performance and the subsequent confirmation of that warning.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a warning letter under Circular No. 246 is merely a step in the procedure that leads to the drafting of a staff report and that, as such, it cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal nor be taken into account to the detriment of the employee (see, for example, Judgments 3697, 3629, 3512 and 3433). The complainant considers that this case law should not apply to his complaint because the warnings at issue involved harassment. However, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3233, under 6, an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it. In the present case, the Tribunal is bound to observe that the complainant’s allegations of harassment are entirely unsubstantiated and amount to mere assertions. Accordingly, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from the case law mentioned above concerning warnings issued under Circular No. 246.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697
  

  Keywords:

  decision; step in the procedure;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3