|
|
 |
|
|
Individual decision (38,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Individual decision
Total judgments found: 96
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the salary adjustment at issue – cannot be impugned, save in highly specific cases, although its lawfulness may, on an exceptional basis, be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions taken on the basis thereof (see, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 3, 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, 4795
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 4435
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who is a former permanent employee of the European Patent Office, challenges the deductions from his remuneration that were made in respect of his absences for strike participation as well as the lawfulness of the general normative decisions on which those deductions were based.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant impugns the two specific decisions to deduct amounts from his salary [...]. Those decisions were individual decisions. Accordingly and consistent with the Tribunal’s existing case law, in challenging those individual decisions the complainant can challenge the general decision upon which the individual decisions are based and, in this particular case, the application of an amended statutory rule allegedly in breach of the complainant’s right to strike (see, for example, Judgment 2089, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint is [...] receivable insofar as it is directed against the pay slip for January 2018, which is an individual decision implementing the general decisions establishing a “pension point”, freezing pensions and setting the value of the point. In support of her claims related to that pay slip, the complainant may therefore plead that the general decisions on which it partly rests are unlawful (see Judgment 3931, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3931
Keywords:
general decision; impugned decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4160
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complaint does not seek to challenge WIPO’s general policy in the matter but the application of this policy to the complainant’s particular case and, since it is based on the terms of the complainant’s employment contract or the rules and regulations governing the staff of the Organization, it clearly comes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4159
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract of employment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s claims regarding the redefinition of his employment relationship do not seek to challenge WIPO’s general policy in the matter but the application of this policy to the complainant’s particular case and, since they are based on the terms of the complainant’s employment contract or the rules and regulations governing the staff of the Organization, they clearly come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WIPO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WIPO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that 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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ITU to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ITU’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that 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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of IOM to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from IOM’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that 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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that 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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WHO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WHO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ILO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ILO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that 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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4119
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4016
Keywords:
allowance; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4075
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision; individual decision; member state; tax; tax equalization;
Judgment 4028
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.
Considerations 3, 5, 6
Extract:
The complainants request the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10. However, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3736, under 3, “according to the case law, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; it is only the individual implementing decisions which may be challenged (see Judgment 3628, under 4, and the case law cited therein)”. In these circumstances, the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 are irreceivable and must be dismissed. [...]
Since the claims seeking the setting aside of Service Order No. 14/10 must be dismissed, as stated in consideration 3 above, the same applies to the claims directed against the Secretary-General’s final decision insofar as it concerns the decisions of 23 July 2014 on the requests for review that were directed solely against the aforementioned service order.
Ms F. has not challenged any individual decision implementing Service Order No. 14/10. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable.
However, Ms D. and Mr D. submitted requests for review of their pay slips reflecting an increase in the deduction for health insurance. Ms D. submitted a further request for review of a calculation of reimbursements of health-related expenses which showed that a deductible had been applied. These decisions are individual decisions implementing Service Order No. 14/10 which, as stated above, are open to appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
