General decision (33,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 145

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

• Judgment 4805

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests Circular No. 359 on the European Patent Office closure policy in 2015.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  In his pleas before the Tribunal, the complainant makes no attempt to establish even an arguable case that this general decision either negatively impacted on him immediately or this was likely (Judgment 4119, consideration 4). In the absence of any argument which might persuade the Tribunal that this essential foundation of his case was even arguably correct, it is not open to the complainant to immediately develop lengthy arguments about the abolition of the [General Advisory Committee], the composition of the General Consultative Committee […] and whether consultation occurred or was necessary, and additionally challenge the internal appeal process. These last-mentioned matters are without purpose in the absence of any case concerning the lawfulness of the content of the Circular.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4119
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4802

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the European Parent Office closure policy in 2015 and 2016.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4795

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
  Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
  

  Keywords:

  claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4793

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that staff members may only challenge a general decision to the extent that they impugn an individual decision, stemming from that general decision, concerning them (see, for example, Judgment 3494, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3494
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4769

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Three of the decisions which the complainant challenges as unlawful and seeks to have set aside are general decisions. [...]
  However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s claim for these decisions to be set aside is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue and the two decisions of 20 September 2019 – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
  

  Keywords:

  claim; general decision; individual decision;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Contrary to the complainant’s submissions in the complaint, these general decisions are not among the exceptions recognised in the Tribunal’s case law according to which general decisions may be challenged when they do not require implementing decisions and immediately and adversely affect individual rights (see in this connection Judgments 4551, consideration 5, and 4550, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4550, 4551
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  As regards the memorandum [...] which the complainant describes as a general decision, the Tribunal observes that it is in fact a collective decision making various individual appointments against the backdrop of the planned restructuring to ensure that management functioned smoothly during a transition period before recruitment procedures were initiated or final appointment decisions adopted. However, even supposing that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging these appointments, he stated in his internal complaint of 20 September 2019 that he did not seek to cause injury to his colleagues appointed and that he therefore remained at the Organisation’s disposal to discuss possible alternatives to cancelling the decision not to appoint him and to appoint his colleagues. The complainant did not request that one or more recruitment procedures be initiated for these various positions, nor did he later challenge his colleagues’ final individual appointments by the Organisation on 12 November 2019. It follows that his request for the memorandum of 5 July 2019 to be set aside is lacking in substance in any event and is therefore irreceivable as being moot.

  Keywords:

  appointment; cause of action; claim moot; general decision; individual decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4768

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  In Judgment 4609, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that its case law “requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties [...] (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7)”. Similarly, in Judgment 4399, consideration 9, the Tribunal noted that “a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken” was necessary. While it is true that this case law concerned individual transfers and not a collective transfer as in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the Organisation is wrong to submit that this requirement does not apply here because there is nothing in its Staff Regulations and Rules of Application imposing such an obligation in the context of a collective transfer carried out in the interests of the service.
  Firstly, the absence of a binding provision to this effect in the applicable rules cannot permit an organisation to disregard the principles established by the Tribunal’s case law. Secondly, the fact that the transfer was collective rather than individual does not exempt the Organisation from this fundamental requirement. Although the Tribunal’s case law has it that the general principle protecting a staff member’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see, for example, Judgments 4593, consideration 7, and 4283, consideration 6), in the present case, even if the impugned decision was collective in scope, it was obviously not impersonal. The Tribunal considers that a decision which, as in this case, notifies specifically identified staff members of their new individual postings with effect from 4 July 2019 cannot be considered an impersonal decision.
  The Tribunal is not persuaded by Eurocontrol’s argument that it would not be “conceivable or even possible” for an organisation to consult individually each staff member before a collective transfer on the scale of that at issue in the present case, which affected over 600 staff members. The Organisation cannot refer to the scale of the collective transfer in support of its argument that it was not required to allow every staff member to comment before transferring her or him, even if this was done in a manner that was adapted and appropriate to the particular situation of this major reorganisation.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4283, 4399, 4451, 4593, 4609
  

  Keywords:

  consultation; general decision; right to be heard; transfer;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant further requests that the Director General’s internal memorandum of 4 July 2019 be set aside, but that claim is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
  

  Keywords:

  claim; general decision; individual decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4759

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  It is settled case law that a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned, save in highly specific situations, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4734

  
  136th Session, 2023
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the «administrative decisions» contained in Office Instruction No. 20/2021 in connection with the payment of a language allowance.

  Considerations 4 & 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that Office Instruction No. 20/2021 is a general decision which applies to all staff members in the General Service category. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a complainant cannot directly challenge a decision of that type unless it requires no implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 4430, consideration 14, and 3761, consideration 14). As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3736, consideration 3, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned and the lawfulness of that general decision may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see also Judgments 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 4119, consideration 4, 4008, consideration 3, 3628, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
  [T]he new provisions contained in Office Instruction No. 20/2021 have no immediate effect on the complainant’s situation. The complainant will have the opportunity to challenge this general decision, if need be, in the context of a future challenge to the individual decisions that may be taken on its basis.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 3761, 4008, 4119, 4278, 4430, 4572
  

  Keywords:

  general decision; individual decision;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4720

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  It is at least arguable that a right to challenge a general decision through a challenge to an individual decision implementing it is not an open-ended and enduring right. The right to challenge the individual decision is subject to ordinary time limits. Accordingly, so is, arguably, the right to challenge the general decision (see Judgment 3614). But as this point was not raised in the pleas, the Tribunal will not address it in detail with a view to considering, ex officio, the receivability of this complaint on this basis.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
  

  Keywords:

  general decision; individual decision; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4715

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [I]nasmuch as the Tribunal’s case law states that complainants can impugn a decision only if it directly affects them, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to them, they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action (see, for example, Judgment 4563, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4713

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Inasmuch as the Tribunal’s case law states that complainants can impugn a decision only if it directly affects them, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to them, they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action (see, for example, Judgment 4563, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4710

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Administrative Council decision CA/D 10/14 to modify the career system.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  career; complaint dismissed; general decision; step;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4597

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary pursuant to the implementation of the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant impugns three decisions, namely, the decision to introduce a unified salary scale, the decision to reduce the dependency allowance and the decision to alter the benefits payable by way of education grant. As noted earlier, these are general decisions. The complainant characterises the decision of the Director-General of 9 August 2019 as an individual decision. In some senses it is, in that it disposed of the complainant’s particular appeal brought as an individual staff member. However, this is not the focus of the case law. A relevant individual decision is one in which a general decision is applied to the particular circumstances of the complainant in a way that adversely affects the complainant. It is for this reason that many general decisions are challenged by reference to a payslip in which individual payments are made to a complainant who seeks to argue the relevant general decision underpinning the payment has adversely affected her or him (see, for example, Judgment 3614, consideration 12). By confining challenges to general decisions in this way, two related objectives are achieved. The first is that it requires the Tribunal to focus on the individual circumstances of the complainant, given that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction conferred by its Statute is substantially concerned with individual grievances. The second concerns relief. Generally, the Tribunal’s power to grant relief (see Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute) is limited to remedying the effect of an organisation’s unlawful conduct in relation to the complainant alone and not relief cast more broadly.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision; icsc decision; un common system;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4593

  
  135th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s [...] plea alleging that he was not heard before the impugned decision was taken to his detriment, the Tribunal has already held that the general principle protecting an official’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see Judgment 4283, consideration 6). That same case law applies to the situation where, as in the present case, the contested decision is purely and simply the consequence of a general decision of that kind.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283
  

  Keywords:

  general decision; right to be heard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4572

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recission in which he described the moral injury caused to him by the entry into force of new regulatory provisions.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [I]t is settled case law that a complainant is not entitled to challenge directly general decisions [...]. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 3736, consideration 3, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; the lawfulness of a general decision may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see Judgments 3628, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein, 4008, consideration 3, 4119, consideration 4, and 4278, consideration 2).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4008, 4119, 4278
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4563

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision; invalidity;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, complainants can impugn a decision only if it directly affects them, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to them, but they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action (see Judgments 3291, consideration 8, and 4119, consideration 4). However, a general decision can be immediately challenged where it does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see Judgment 3761, consideration 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3761, 4119
  

  Keywords:

  general decision;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, a rule which concerns a long-term issue (such as pensions which last the remainder of the employees’ lifetimes) may be modified throughout the years. The changes in circumstances which may require the rule to be amended must be reasonable and the changes have to balance the interests of the employees and the Organisation. The interest of current and future employees who are not currently affected by the rule but shall be in the future is also to be taken into account by the Organisation. The question of the sustainability of pension schemes must be a primary concern to the Organisation and as such may naturally require adjustments to be made to the norm regulating pension schemes over time.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; pension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4551

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainants challenge two general decisions, the first announcing future rules on mass emails, and the second setting out new rules on mass emails. The Tribunal’s case law holds that a member of staff cannot impugn in proceedings in the Tribunal a general decision unless and until an individual decision which affects the member of staff personally is made based on the general decision. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14: “In general, [an administrative decision of general application] is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However, there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights.” This is equally true regarding the right to associate freely (see, for example, Judgments 496, consideration 6, and 3414, consideration 4). As the Tribunal observed in that latter case, all officials of international organisations have a right to associate and an implied contractual term in the appointment of each that the relevant organisation will not infringe that right. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the complainant could invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to seek to argue that his rights had been directly and adversely affected by general decisions. In the present case, the complainants allege that the Communiqué of 31 May 2013 immediately and directly affected the right of staff members to freely associate, by stating that as from 3 June 2013 emails sent to more than fifty addressees would be allowed only if authorised, and, if not, they would be automatically blocked and not dispatched. As to Communiqué No. 26 of 13 May 2013, it was the first step of the process that was finalized with the issuance of the Communiqué of 31 May 2013; therefore, it was properly contested together with the Communiqué of 31 May 2013 in the internal appeal and in the present complaints.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3414, 3761
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4550

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  In support of his claims against decision CA/D 2/14, the complainant argues subsidiarily that this decision was adopted unlawfully because the composition of the General Advisory Committee, which was consulted prior to the deliberation of the Administrative Council, was flawed. However, pleas of this nature cannot be usefully raised in the present proceedings. Indeed, the complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The invocation of the right to freely associate upon which he wished to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction renders irrelevant the question whether the decision was also legally flawed for the other reasons raised by the complainant in this case and therefore shall not be examined by the Tribunal (see above-mentioned Judgment 4482, consideration 6, and Judgment 4483, consideration 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4482, 4483
  

  Keywords:

  consultation; freedom of association; general decision;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Although it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member cannot challenge a decision of general application unless and until an individual decision adversely affecting her or him has been adopted (see, for example, Judgments 1852, consideration 3, 2822, consideration 6, or 4430, consideration 14), an exception is made where the decision of general application does not require any implementing decision and immediately affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 3761, consideration 14, 4430, considerations 14 and 15, or 4482, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2822, 3761, 4430, 4482
  

  Keywords:

  general decision; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4487

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that the arrears owed to him in respect of his invalidity allowance, related benefits and unused leave following a retroactive modification of the monthly gross salary scales in December 2012 were not paid to him until January 2013.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant challenges “the underlying general decisions” together with the individual implementation. This claim is irreceivable […]. The internal appeal lodged by the complainant […] did not explicitly challenge any general decisions, its only object being to obtain the payment of the “arrears”, together with the December pay slip. Moreover, in that appeal, not only are the disputed general decisions not clearly identified, but also neither are any arguments offered to challenge their lawfulness. Therefore, this claim is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies (Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute).

  Keywords:

  general decision; internal remedies not exhausted;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4483

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; freedom of association; general decision; staff representative;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant contends there is a fundamental or inherent right of staff to meaningful consultation, referring to Judgments 1488 and 1062. However, these cases concerned the operation of specific provisions in the Service Regulations and do not establish the fundamental right contended for, nor has it been otherwise recognised by the Tribunal. Insofar as the complainant relies on the alleged violation of this asserted right, his complaint is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1062, 1488
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; consultation; general decision; right;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >