Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 273
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
Judgment 3461
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are irreceivable and they are summarily dismissed.
Considerations 5 and 6
Extract:
"As the two complainants contest the validity of the same decision [...] on identical grounds, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to join their complaints.
The Tribunal finds that the complaints must be dismissed as irreceivable as neither of the complainants has a cause of action. The contested decision [...] does not affect the complainants, either as individual employees or as individual members of the GAC as it has not yet been implemented. The decision caused, at the time it was challenged, no change to their personal membership in and contributions to the GAC. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the complainants cannot act as representatives of the GAC as a whole in impugning this decision, as the GAC itself was involved in the decision-making process and gave its advice based on the majority opinion of its members. According to the Tribunal’s case law established in Judgment 3291, under 7, “[the complainant] could not be considered to have a cause of action as he did not represent the GAC as a whole. That is because the GAC was consulted and submitted its opinion, which shows that the majority did not agree that the documents submitted were insufficient.” To allow an individual GAC member to file a complaint on behalf of the GAC as a whole, when she/he disagrees with a decision taken by the Administrative Council following consultation with the GAC, would be contrary to the “majority rule” that the GAC has adopted in relation to the opinions it provides and to the Tribunal’s case law on locus standi, according to which a decision may be impugned only by persons who are directly adversely affected by it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 3460
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion and it summarily dismissed the complaint.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2367, 2703
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; outsourcing; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in taking the decision to transfer the administration of all pension files to the ISRP. Such a decision falls within the scope of the regular administration of the Organisation and the Tribunal finds no flaw in the decision-making process, nor in the implementation of the decision. Furthermore the Tribunal finds that the decision cannot be considered unreasonable or outside the range of acceptability as it is uncontested that the ISRP had already been dealing with over a quarter of all EPO pension files as well as the pension files of several other international organizations.
The Tribunal also finds that the complainant’s requests are unjustified as all questions concerning the pension scheme remain under the responsibility of the Organisation, and the adopted outsourcing is merely a tool to increase the efficiency of the administration of the pension files."
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3454
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the complaints as irreceivable.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There is a difficulty for [the] complainants which stands in the way of their complaints being considered on the merits. They are challenging, directly, the decision of the Administrative Council and not its implementation as it might have applied to them (see, for example, Judgment 2822, under 6, and Judgment 3291, under 8). For that reason, the complaints are irreceivable and should be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2822, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3453
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the complaint as clearly irreceivable.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, who asserts that he is acting as chairperson of the “Committee monitoring the payment of War Rehabilitation Grants”, does not allege any breach of his terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations applicable to him. His complaint, which does not fall within the competence of the Tribunal, is therefore clearly irreceivable [...]."
Keywords:
cause of action; status of complainant;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3450
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Moreover, “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, any staff member who is eligible to occupy a post has cause of action in seeking the setting aside of the decision to give that post to another person, irrespective of his or her real chances of successful appointment to the post in question” (see Judgment 3206, under 11, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3206
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi;
Judgment 3449
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Any employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3). In order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the complainant does have cause for action, since he relies on a breach of the right, recognised in the Staff Regulations, of representatives of the Staff Union to be notified of a proposal to open a competition. [...]
Moreover, the Organization is wrong to submit that the complaint concerning the appointment to the grade P.3 post has become moot because that post has been abolished, since the appointment in question produced effects."
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant resists the conclusion that his appeal against the abolition decision was time-barred and refers in his rejoinder to Judgment 1712, consideration 10:
“The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the Appellant’s position.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The decisions of the Administrative Council [...] are regulatory texts or, in other words, general decisions governing all officials subject to them. As the Tribunal has consistently held, where such texts must ordinarily be followed by individual implementing decisions, [...] they are not open to challenge before the Tribunal. When these texts are adopted, they affect the protected personal interests of individual employees only in theory, and it is not until a subsequent individual decision is taken that they produce a practical legal effect. It is only the latter decision which may form the subject of a complaint before the Tribunal, and if the official concerned wishes to challenge the regulatory text which affords the basis for it in law, he must plead the unlawfulness of that decision in this complaint (see, for example, Judgments 1786, under 5, 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, 2822, under 6, 2953, under 2, and, for recent confirmation of this case law, the aforementioned Judgment 3291, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786, 1852, 2379, 2822, 2953, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal will not accept the complainants’ surprising argument that questions pertaining to the nature of the impugned decisions and their cause of action to request the setting aside thereof have no bearing on the receivability of their claims. According to the complainants, the only requirements regarding the receivability of complaints laid down by the Statute of the Tribunal are those mentioned in Article VII, namely that all internal means of redress must have been exhausted, that a final decision must have been taken and that the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal must have been respected. However, these rules concern only the procedural aspect of receivability. Receivability is also governed by Article II of the Statute, which, by defining the nature of disputes which the Tribunal has competence to hear ratione personae and ratione materiae, establishes further rules of receivability pertaining to the substantive aspect thereof. Thus a complaint will be receivable only if it is directed against a decision which is of a kind that may be challenged before the Tribunal and if it is filed by an official who shows a cause of action (see, among innumerable examples, Judgments 1756, under 5, 1786, under 5 and 6, 2379, under 5, or 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1786, 2379, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Consideration 32
Extract:
The complainants contend that they have a direct interest in decision CA/D 14/08 because it concerns the tax adjustments of employees recruited before 1 January 2009. It does not follow from the fact that a complainant has an interest either direct or otherwise in a decision that the decision has been applied to the complainant and that it has been applied in a manner prejudicial to the complainant.
Keywords:
cause of action; individual decision; lack of injury; tax;
Consideration 33
Extract:
The Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, where a “complainant has failed to demonstrate that the contested administrative actions have caused him any injury to his health, financially or otherwise, or that it is liable to cause him injury, the complainant does not have a cause of action”. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action;
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal considered the same receivability argument in Judgment 3426, under 16, and rejected it for the following reasons:
“The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, ‘[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action’. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint ‘must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations’ (Judgment 3136, under 11).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136, 3426
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; pension;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In the present case, the complainants have not shown that decision CA/D 25/07 has caused them or is liable to cause them any injury. The effect of the decision was budgetary only. The shift of the financial responsibility for the tax adjustment did not in any way adversely affect either of the complainants and will not have any adverse effect in the future.
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury;
Judgment 3337
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Considering that his harassment complaint has not been treated within a reasonable time, the complainant asks the Tribunal to sanction the Organisation for breach of its duty of care.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Claim (b) is irreceivable as it does not reasonably provide a cause of action. It would be exceptional for the Tribunal to instruct the President to ensure that Mr [...] will not be in a position to influence the complainant’s future career or to intervene in it, as the complainant requests. This is because this claim points to a future possibility rather than to a current grievance and present injury."
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that allowing a complaint against a general decision which does not directly and immediately affect the
complainant but which may have a direct negative effect on her/him in the future, would cause an unreasonable restriction of the right of defence, as staff members would then have to impugn immediately all general decisions which may have any connection with their future interests, on the basis that a general decision which is not challenged within the established time becomes immune from challenge. On this approach, once a general decision is considered immune, any complaint impugning the subsequent decision implementing it could not challenge the lawfulness of the underlying general decision. Considering this, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the approach illustrated by the recent case law (Judgments 2822 and 3146) is to be followed. According to that case law, a complainant can impugn a decision only if it directly affects her/him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her/him, but she/he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2822, 3146
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3280
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"Her cause of action in challenging the refusal to hold that promotion round cannot depend on the potential outcome of the round."
Keywords:
cause of action; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3241
115th Session, 2013
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reviews for 2008 and 2009.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and may be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted. This is buttressed by the statement of principle in Judgment 466, under 3, that such matters may be so challenged since every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on her or his performance, on which her or his career will depend. However, such a decision must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not so challenged, the decision becomes final and cannot be reopened (see Judgment 3059, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 466, 3059
Keywords:
cause of action; internal remedies exhausted; performance evaluation; performance report; time limit;
Judgment 3206
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; competition; flaw; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Consideration 20
Extract:
“[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3198
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the withdrawal from his personal file of the warnings concerning his productivity.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[A] complaint will be irreceivable if a complainant is not adversely affected by the impugned decision. Accordingly, in the context of staff assessment reports, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1674, under consideration 6(a): “a complaint is irreceivable when the decision at issue is not one that adversely affects the complainant. A decision is an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect on the staff member’s status: see Judgment 532 […]. The complainant suffers no injury from having to wait for a later decision which he may impugn, [...]. Similarly, an internal appeal, followed by a complaint, is not receivable when the organisation’s rules prescribe some formality to be completed first (see Judgment 468 […] concerning ‘something which is only one step in a complex procedure and of which only the final outcome is subject to appeal’).”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A] cause of action no longer exists when the action that is complained of is withdrawn. Thus, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1394, under 4, in which the EPO was the defendant: “At the date of filing […] the decision [the complainant] is impugning did indisputably cause [him] injury and he was free to challenge it as he saw fit. Yet, though his claim to quashing did then serve some purpose it no longer does so since at his own instance the decision has been withdrawn. There is of course no question of quashing a decision that no longer exists and therefore has no effect in law. So the claim to the quashing of the decision must fail.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1394
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; personal file;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; status of complainant;
Judgment 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to find that, if these sums were to be subject to national taxation, she would be entitled to obtain a refund of the tax paid from the Organization. In the absence of any present cause of action, this claim must be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; national taxation of the tribunal's award;
Judgment 3143
113th Session, 2012
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
IFAD requests “ that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. In this regard, IFAD refers to a statement by her shortly after filing her request for facilitation, that she would donate the money claimed to a cat shelter. In support of its application, IFAD refers to Judgment 764 in which the Tribunal held that a decision can only be challenged if it causes the complainant injury. The application is misconceived. If the complainant was entitled to the amount claimed, she suffered injury as a result of the decision rejecting her claim. Moreover, she is entitled to dispose of her property in any way she sees fit and retains a personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings, even if she intends, in the event of success, to give the money to a cat shelter.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3138
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to rule that, if the sums awarded were to be subject to national taxation, she would be entitled to claim a refund of the tax paid from the ITU. In the absence of a present cause of action in this regard, this claim must be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; national taxation of the tribunal's award;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >
|
