Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 286
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2024
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The decision of the President of the European Patent Office complies with the requests the complainant had made in her internal appeals. "Therefore, the complainant has received satisfaction and shows no cause of action with respect to the impugned decision."
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; executive head; internal appeal; lack of injury; request by a party;
Judgment 1983
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not extended. "It is true that the complainant was aware of the organization's intentions, having been informed of them several times, in particular, in a talk with the Director of the [organization's] service in France on 6 November 1997 and by the fax messages of 11 and 20 November 1997. Nevertheless, she was right to wait for official notification of an administrative decision from the competent authorities of [the organization] before challenging the measure. Although the letter of 16 January 1998 signed by the Director of the [organization's] service in France appears to be merely a letter of confirmation, it is the only official administrative decision adversely affecting the complainant. Her letter of 6 February 1998 seeking a review of it was therefore in time."
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."
Keywords:
career; cause of action; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1927
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"While the complaint may seem to show no cause of action, since the decision to suspend him has been revoked, the measure did have material - although not financial - and particularly moral consequences during the period for which it was in effect. Certain of the complainant's duties were withdrawn, although he continued to receive full pay. In these conditions, the complaint does still show cause for action [...]."
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; injury; material injury; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; suspension; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 1896
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainants contest the Administrative Council's decision refusing to allow a staff representative on the Appeals Committee which can hear appeals against decisions of the Council. "Decisions of a general thrust relating to the attributions of power can be challenged forthwith, without having to wait until the body, whose composition is contested, delivers an unfavourable individual decision to the appellant".
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; decision; general decision; individual decision; internal appeals body; staff representative;
Judgment 1852
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1798
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A strong line of precedent has it that payslips are individual decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal. [...] Even though the council has reserved its right to alter pay for July 1996 later, and retroactively, the impugned decisions do show a cause of action."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; discretion; executive body; individual decision; payslip; tribunal;
Judgment 1786
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, the staff member must impugn an individual decision applying a general one and, if need be, may for that purpose challenge the lawfulness of the general one without any risk of being told that such challenge is time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1712
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. 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 complainant's position."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; cause of action; complainant; consequence; effect; injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1689
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Agency replies that [...] where candidates are found suitable and put on a par no explanation is called for, though 'a reasoned report would have made sense had the Board put the two candidates in order of preference'. The plea is unsound. It postulates that the complainant was unaffected by the finding that he was as fit for the post as the other candidate, and in any event overlooks the fact that the candidates are in competition. [...]. If two are ranked ex aequo each may have an interest in contending that the other should have been marked lower. [...]. In any event the final ranking [...] must be accounted for."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition; duty to substantiate decision; selection board;
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 1666
83rd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"A claim to a ruling in law will be receivable only if the complainant shows some cause of action. Generally he may not do so if he may instead challenge a specific decision in support of his claim to redress. "Here the complainant makes two claims to rulings in law. The first seems to have been made only to lend substance to his claims to redress. "It cannot stand on its own since it shows no cause of action that the complainant may have."
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Association's third objection is that the complainants are challenging the adoption of rules and in any event cannot impute any present injury thereto. According to precedent an international civil servant may in exceptional circumstances challenge the lawfulness of a rule that has been applied to him. The notification to the complainants of the changes in the system of reckoning and paying their retirement pensions constituted individual application of rules adopted by the member States of EFTA and set out in the contract with [a private insurance company]. Even though, as the defendant says, the complainants cannot yet show any injury, they do have a cause of action and may challenge, howsoever they wish, the lawfulness of the new pension rules."
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; executive body; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; pension; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1641
83rd Session, 1997
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants are challenging the methodology laid down for carrying out salary surveys and a decision by WIPO reflected in their pay slips to apply that method. The Tribunal holds that they have a cause of action, which is is to obtain from the Tribunal "a declaration that the rule and the decision they are challenging would still be unlawful even if they had later got the increase that was withheld for the six months prior to the general survey. They would indeed have been slightly better off had they received the increase earlier. They are also entitled to a decision as to whether the rule they are challenging holds good for the future."
Keywords:
adjustment; cause of action; decision; decision quashed; increase; increment withheld; inquiry; investigation; payslip; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;
Judgment 1595
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Even if she were unqualified for the post the complainant would not forfeit her right to challenge the appointment."
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; condition; internal candidate; receivability of the complaint; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1549
81st Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An official of an international organisation who applies for a vacancy is entitled to have his application considered and assessed according to the set procedure once the organisation admits it under the terms of the vacancy notice. It may not deny that an applicant has a cause of action after it has appointed someone else, especially if the applicant is challenging the appointment on the grounds of breach of his rights in failure to apply the proper procedure".
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; due process; internal candidate; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Whether [the complainant who is now retired] still has any interest in the quashing of someone else's appointment is moot; but he still has an interest in exposing a breach of due process which may warrant an award of damages: see Judgment 729 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 729
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; claim moot; compensation; competition; due process; flaw; internal candidate; post; procedural flaw; receivability of the complaint; retirement;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
