|
|
 |
|
|
Impugned decision (651, 33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Impugned decision
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeal body is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 12,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting recommendations of an internal appeal body, is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty of care, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 4846
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
There is no material difference between the circumstances arising in this case and those that were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 4295. In that case the complaint was dismissed because the complainant had no cause of action. A decision had been made by the Director General that no disciplinary measure would be imposed on the complainant. As the Tribunal observed, the decision was beneficial to the complainant, and thus he had no cause of action. To the extent that a finding of fact (contested by the complainant) had been made which led to the decision, that finding, as the Tribunal explained, “forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision”. In the present case, the decision not to commence disciplinary proceedings was likewise favourable to the complainant. To the extent findings of fact were made and adhered to in the impugned decision and reflected in the modified text of the letter of 22 February 2018, they were findings informing what was ultimately the favourable decision. Given the modification of the letter, there was no conclusory finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, the matter that troubled the WAB […] The complainant has no cause of action and her complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; impugned decision; misconduct; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Insofar as the complaint is directed against the decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant’s first complaint for moral harassment against Mr P.H. as unfounded, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a) Where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon the claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days from the expiry of the four-month time limit for the Administration to respond to his internal complaint, even if the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, combined with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in this case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation overlooked the fact that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. There is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implied decision to reject from the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that, while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of one year and seven months that had elapsed between 5 June 2020, when the complainant filed his internal complaint, and 7 February 2022, when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and the fact that his counsel had followed up, to no avail, with the Director General, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeal procedure that would allow him to proceed directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a final decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 12 May 2022, as was the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes relating thereto, and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete dossier in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on the express decision to reject the complainant’s internal complaint of 5 June 2020, and thus on the decision to reject the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the latter decision of 12 May 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
The present complaint is, accordingly, receivable insofar as it challenges the lawfulness of the Director General’s decision of 12 May 2022 to reject, as unfounded, the first moral harassment complaint directed against Mr P.H. It will therefore be examined from this standpoint by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal observes, thirdly, that, although the two matters outlined above were, among others, specifically noted by the Joint Committee for Disputes in reaching the unanimous conclusion, in its opinion issued on 24 January 2022, that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded, they were not in any way addressed in the reasons given in the Director General’s final decision of 12 May 2022.
Accordingly, there are grounds for considering that the reasons given for this decision are also not adequate, within the meaning of the Tribunal’s relevant case law (see Judgments 4700, consideration 4, 4598, consideration 12, 4400, consideration 10, and 4062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4400, 4598, 4700
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Consideration 1
Extract:
In her brief, the complainant identifies the 12 February 2020 letter from the Chief, Human Resources Management Department (HRMD), as the impugned decision. […]
The Tribunal notes that, in the meantime, the Appeal Board considered the matter and, on 30 September 2020, the Administration took a final decision on the complainant’s appeal […]. In view of this final decision taken in the course of the proceedings, which has thus replaced the decision initially impugned before the Tribunal, the present complaint must be deemed to be directed against the 30 September 2020 decision.
Keywords:
impugned 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 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant raised the point that, after he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, [...] the Joint Committee for Disputes eventually issued its opinion on his internal complaint. This led to a decision explicitly rejecting that internal complaint, taken on 10 December 2021 [...].
[...] Since the parties had the opportunity to comment fully in their submissions on the decision expressly rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as if it were directed against that decision (for similar cases, see, in particular, Judgments 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065, 4660
Keywords:
express decision; implied decision; impugned 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 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant raised the point that, after he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, [...] the Joint Committee for Disputes eventually issued its opinion on his internal complaint [...]. This led to the Director General taking the decision [...] explicitly rejecting that internal complaint [...].
Since the parties had the opportunity to comment fully in their submissions on the decision expressly rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, the Tribunal considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the complaint as if it were directed against that decision (for similar cases, see, in particular, Judgments 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065, 4660
Keywords:
express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In view of the fact that, subsequent to the complainant filing his complaint and his rejoinder, the Joint Committee for Disputes delivered its opinion on 6 October 2021 on his internal complaint of 29 May 2020 and the Director General made an express decision on 12 October 2021 rejecting that internal complaint, the complainant also impugns that decision in his further submissions.
Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on that express decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint of 29 May 2020, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4696
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
After the complainant had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, a final decision was taken by the Director General on 7 December 2020 rejecting his internal complaint. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore specifies that, ultimately, he is impugning that final decision, which in fact confirmed the earlier contested decision of 26 November 2019.
Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on that final decision, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4695
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.
Consideration 3
Extract:
After the complainant had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, an express decision was taken by the Director General on 7 December 2020 rejecting his internal complaint of 17 February 2020. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore also challenges that decision.
Since the parties have had ample opportunity to comment in their submissions on the express decision to reject the internal complaint in question, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that decision.
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes on the complainant’s internal complaint of 10 July 2018 was delivered on 29 March 2019, subsequent to the date on which he had filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and an express decision rejecting the internal complaint was taken on 9 May 2019 by the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit, acting by delegation of power from the Director General and endorsing the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that the internal complaint was unfounded. In his rejoinder, the complainant therefore also challenges that decision.
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In view of the adoption of the aforementioned decision of 12 August 2020 during the proceedings before the Tribunal, which the complainant challenged in his rejoinder and on which the parties were able to express their views in their submissions, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against that final decision (see, in particular, for comparable situations, Judgments 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 4065
Keywords:
impugned decision;
Judgment 4637
135th 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:
The complainant also seeks an order setting aside the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, impugned by the complainant, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, in respect of the EPO’s Appeals Committee, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. This is equally true of an opinion of the Appraisals Committee. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3171, consideration 13).
It follows that this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4392
Keywords:
impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4598
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A] mere declaration […] that [the Director-General] was satisfied of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt without explaining why, involves a failure to motivate a conclusion at odds with the conclusion of the internal appeals body. This failure, alone, would justify the setting aside of the impugned decision (see Judgments 4400, consideration 10, 4062, consideration 3, and 3969, considerations 10 and 16). What, at a minimum, the Director-General needed to have done was explain why the analysis of the GBA […] was flawed, or did not sustain the ultimate conclusion of the GBA, or both. He did neither.
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;
Judgment 4477
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation in lieu of notice of termination of appointment for reasons of health and the reimbursement of the days of annual leave he alleges that he had accrued before that termination.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the complainant’s claim that the Appeal Board report of 2 February 2018, on which the impugned decision of 3 April 2018 is based, be set aside on account of a formal flaw [...] the Tribunal observes that an opinion issued by an appeal body is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a decision on the appeal which does not itself cause injury to the complainant. Claims against it are therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4392
Keywords:
impugned decision; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4461
133rd Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the suspension decision as well as the decision to remove him from his duties had, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the complainant, and were not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must themselves be challenged (see, for example, Judgments 1927, consideration 5, 2365, consideration 4, 3035, consideration 10, and 4237, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035, 4237
Keywords:
impugned decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 4439
132nd Session, 2021
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4430
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal case law to the effect that a general decision cannot be challenged by a staff member unless and until an individual decision is taken. 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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4404
132nd Session, 2021
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of an amount wrongly deducted from her pay owing to double national taxation of her income, and compensation for the moral injury allegedly suffered as a result.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16, confirmed by Judgments 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3700, consideration 14, 3876, consideration 5, and 3961, consideration 4).
In this case, the email [...], the sole purpose of which was to invite the complainant to submit documents deemed necessary by the organisation’s services so that the deductions could be reimbursed, was merely a step in preparation for the decision that would ultimately be taken as to the payment of the sums in question. That email cannot therefore be construed as constituting a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be impugned before the Tribunal (for a similar case involving a request for the production of supporting documents required for the examination of an application for financial benefits, see Judgment 3876, considerations 4 and 5).
It follows that the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; failure to exhaust internal remedies; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4303
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he impugned decision was based on an affirmative finding that the decision to abolish the complainant’s post was tainted by illegality including prejudice towards the complainant. In a case such as the present, a challenge to a final administrative decision is a challenge to the decision itself and at least ordinarily not the reasons on which the decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 7), nor to any alleged procedural flaws leading to a decision which vindicates the complainant’s grievance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997
Keywords:
cause of action; impugned decision;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
