|
|
 |
|
|
Invalidity (465, 466, 467, 653,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Invalidity
Total judgments found: 50
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4904
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to recognise that he was suffering from disability.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ccording to [the Tribunal's] case law, while it may not replace the medical findings of a body such as an invalidity board with its own assessment, it does have full competence to say whether there was due process and to examine whether the board’s opinion shows any material mistake or inconsistency, overlooks some essential fact or plainly misreads the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4709, consideration 4, 4585, consideration 10, 4473, consideration 13, 4237, consideration 5, 3994, consideration 5, 2996, consideration 11, 2361, consideration 9, and 1284, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1284, 2361, 2996, 3994, 4237, 4473, 4585, 4709
Keywords:
invalidity; judicial review; medical board; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4898
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of the permanent invalidity lump sum.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In light of its precedents, the Tribunal notes that the suppression of the invalidity lump sum did not infringe an acquired right, as such a lump sum cannot be considered an essential term of employment which induced the complainant to accept the appointment and to stay on. By its nature, the payment of a lump sum in case of the invalidity of a staff member is a remote and contingent right which arises only on the rare occurrence of the permanent invalidity of an official occurring while the official is still employed by the EPO (see Judgments 4398, considerations 11 and 12, and 3375, consideration 13). The triggering event underlying the payment of the lump sum is the permanent invalidity, not the fact that the complainant paid contributions. Hence, many staff members have contributed to the insurance throughout their whole career without receiving the lump sum. In addition, in the case of such an invalidity, other benefits and emoluments are provided for in the “social security package”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3375, 4398
Keywords:
acquired right; invalidity;
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, complainants can impugn general decisions only if they directly affect 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. Moreover, a general decision can be immediately challenged where it does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 4563, consideration 7). In the present case, the complainant has contested general decision CA/D 2/15 to the extent that it abolishes the permanent invalidity lump sum. The complainant has contested it together with an individual decision, that is the complainant’s April 2015 payslip, showing that premiums for the invalidity insurance are no longer deducted from his salary and, as a result, that the complainant is no longer entitled to the lump sum in case of permanent invalidity. It is apparent that the individual decision, that is the April 2015 payslip, implements the general decision and, thus, the general decision has been contested when it was applied in a manner prejudicial to the complainant. Indeed, as of April 2015, the complainant is no longer requested to pay the premium for the invalidity lump sum, because he is no longer entitled to the lump sum after the general decision entered into force.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563
Keywords:
general decision; invalidity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint dismissed; general decision; invalidity; payslip;
Judgment 4807
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4728
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; service-incurred; sick leave; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s argument, good faith does not require an organization to extend the appointment of an underperforming staff member merely because the staff member has applied for a disability benefit.
Keywords:
extension of contract; good faith; invalidity;
Judgment 4636
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension of his sick leave following the expiry of his maximum period of sick leave and the failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity which was attributable to the performance of official duties.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he EPO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It submits that the complaint is premature and therefore irreceivable, because the medical procedure for determining whether a member of staff meets the definition of invalidity involves a series of steps and findings which lead to a final decision; such steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision; they may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. […]
What the complainant identifies as the impugned decision in this case was merely a “step in a process”, which may simply have the appearance of a decision (see, for example, Judgment 3860, consideration 6). It cannot be considered as a final decision for the purposes of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, because it was taken precisely in order for the Medical Committee to obtain additional information before making a determination as to whether the complainant was suffering from invalidity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords:
invalidity; medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that [the] requirement of consultation was all the more important given that the composition of the Invalidity Committee – which, under article 10.4 of the Staff Regulations, includes a medical practitioner appointed by the official concerned, another medical practitioner appointed in agreement with the first medical practitioner, and a member appointed by the Staff Union Committee – constituted a safeguard for the complainant that was not provided by the composition of the multidisciplinary team, which was made up solely of persons appointed by the Organization.
The fact referred to by the Organization in its submissions, that the secretary of the Invalidity Committee had informed the complainant in the email forwarding the report of 6 February 2017 to her that “[t]he procedure before the Invalidity Committee [was] now complete” and that “any decision taken following that report [would] be communicated to [her] directly by the Administration”, did not prevent the further consultation of that body that was thus required. The inclusion of these statements, which are standard formulations used when communicating such reports, plainly could not prevent the Invalidity Committee from exercising its authority if the multidisciplinary team failed in its task of identifying a suitable position.
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; invalidity;
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;
Judgment 4554
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; invalidity; outside activity;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
allowance; complaint dismissed; delay in payment; invalidity;
Judgment 4248
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3446.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; invalidity; medical examination; professional accident;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; service-incurred;
Judgment 4117
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the finding that his invalidity was not caused by an occupational disease.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; invalidity; medical board; service-incurred;
Judgment 4046
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for an invalidity allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
allowance; complaint dismissed; invalidity;
Judgment 3614
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; en banc review; invalidity; late appeal; plenary judgment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3570
121st Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to end his service on grounds of invalidity and requests his reinstatement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; reinstatement;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint allowed; decision quashed; equal treatment; harassment; invalidity; joinder; service-incurred;
Judgment 3396
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In relation with the complainant's service-incurred illness, the Tribunal concluded that she was entitled to an invalidity payment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; illness; invalidity; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although the threshold question as to whether the complainant had a “continuing” invalidity was properly identified, in the course of the communications it appears that from WHO’s perspective the meaning of the term “continuing” involved the question as to whether the condition was permanent or long-term, on the one hand, or temporary on the other hand. This interpretation is incorrect. The continuing nature of a condition is simply whether it will, at the time of diagnosis and prognosis, continue into the future for, if known, anything other than a brief period or continue with an unknown end date. This erroneous approach, in turn, led to a rejection of the medical opinions which do sustain a conclusion that the complainant was suffering from a continuing total invalidity even though the doctors did not say this would continue long-term or was permanent."
Keywords:
invalidity;
Judgment 3375
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims, on the basis of an alleged acquired right, the application of the invalidity pension scheme in force prior to his placement on non-active status on grounds of invalidity.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"By its nature as a remote and contingent right, the benefit to an invalidity pension arises only under conditions of invalidity to cover a risk that rarely occurs. This is not a fundamental term which could be said to have reasonably induced the complainant or any staff member of the EPO to enter into the contract of employment with the Organisation so as to preclude the Organisation from altering its terms as it did by the new arrangements (see, for example, Judgment 2682, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2682
Keywords:
disability benefit; invalidity;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
