|
|
 |
|
|
Administrative decision (708,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 56
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its own case law [...] according to which the reasons for a non-renewal decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself (see, for example, Judgments 4368, consideration 15, 3914, consideration 15, and 1750, consideration 6), but may also be communicated to the staff member concerned in another way, such as at a meeting (compare, for example, with Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 3914, 4368
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4864
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to withhold two months’ salary to comply with a national Court order.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he lawfulness of an administrative decision must be assessed having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time it was adopted. It is firm case law that the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure (see Judgment 2364, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4860
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract upon expiry.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Judgment 4531 is relevant. In that case, a decision was made to reject a request by the complainant to extend her employment beyond normal retirement age. The initial decision to reject the request was not made by the executive head of the organisation who was the repository of the power to make the decision. However, the decision in a review, requested by the complainant, was to the same effect and was made by the executive head. As the Tribunal observed in consideration 11:
“Generally, the process of review creates an opportunity for an administration to reconsider an administrative decision earlier made and the correctness of that decision. It can, in this process, make a decision rectifying or remedying any deficiencies in that earlier decision. That is what happened in the present case. Thus, the failure of the Director-General to initially consider the extension request himself, was remedied by him doing so in the administrative review.”
Thus, in this matter, the decision of the Executive Director in the review remedied such flaws as may have existed in the initial decision, with the result that there was a decision not to extend by the person in authority to make that decision, namely the Executive Director. Accordingly, the plea that the decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment was not authorised is unfounded and should be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4531
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; flaw;
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.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he organisation maintains its plea that there was no reviewable administrative decision, which is foundational to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgment 4672, consideration 4). A decision that does not alter the legal situation of an official is not a decision that adversely affects her or him and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see Judgment 4675, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4672, 4675
Keywords:
administrative decision;
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 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Before the Tribunal, the South Centre repeats its contention that the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable, premised mainly on its submission that the notification of intention to appeal was filed out of time and was accordingly time-barred. On the other hand, the complainant states, in his complaint, that by his internal appeal he challenged the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip dated 18 December 2020 and that the Tribunal has accepted that a payslip could be considered as a challengeable decision (see, for example, consideration 2 of Judgment 3833). The complainant states that his internal appeal was filed against the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice within one month of receipt of his last salary and the emails of December 2020 explaining the organisation’s calculation. However, whether or not the complainant had challenged the non-renewal of his contract, as the defendant contends, the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip, or the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice are matters which were to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body, which should have been established pursuant to Staff Regulation 11.2.
Regarding appeals, Staff Regulation 11.2 relevantly states that an ad hoc Appellate Body shall be established by the Board according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex VII to hear and adjudicate on appeals from staff members. As to the procedure for an appeal from an administrative decision, Annex VII.B. requires a staff member wishing to appeal an administrative decision to notify the Board, through the Chairperson, of intent to appeal within one month of the date of receiving notification of the decision in writing. Within one month of receipt of the staff member’s notice of intent to appeal, the Chairperson of the Board is to refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appellate Body, consisting of three of its members, one of whom shall act as Chairperson. The ad hoc Appellate Body shall then receive the staff member’s written appeal, and a written reply thereto by the Chairperson of the Board. The Appellate Body may also hear further observations on, or rebuttals to, the initial written submissions, orally or in writing. It may also call for oral testimony from the parties or witnesses, including from members of the Secretariat, and for supporting documentation. Under Annex VII.C., a decision of the ad hoc Appellate Body may be brought for review to the Tribunal. The expression “appeal” in Annex VII.B is a reference to an appeal whether it is receivable or not. The obligation of the Chairperson is therefore to refer to the ad hoc Appellate Body a matter even if it is arguably not a receivable appeal. Moreover, there is no express provision in the Annex conferring power on the Chairperson to reject an appeal if it is irreceivable.
It is obvious from the foregoing provisions that the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Board erred by responding to the notification of intention to appeal in the way they did, given that they were not empowered to do so under the rules governing appeals. The notification of intention to appeal was to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body which should have been constituted for that purpose and the Chairperson of the Board was required to refer the notification of intention to appeal to that body. As this did not occur, the complainant was denied the benefit and possibility of having the decision he challenged effectively reviewed by the competent internal appeal body, which was his right (see, for example, Judgments 4620, consideration 5, and 3067, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3067, 3833, 4620
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
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.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
“With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such, cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office of 12 July 2007. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007.”
[…] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant further asks the Tribunal to order that document CA/03/12 be withdrawn and to declare that the respective General Advisory Committee (GAC) consultation was flawed and invalid. The Tribunal notes that document CA/03/12 was not a decision, much less a final decision, but merely the President’s proposal for the amendment of Article 70a of the Service Regulations and Circular No. 301 (Rev. 1). Therefore, it is not challengeable before the Tribunal (see Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6). […] Therefore this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
Judgment 4799
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that in a judgment regarding the issue of alleged interference in the work of the Examining Division, the Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action;
Judgment 4798
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the complainant’s claims alleging undue interference in her work in the Examining Division have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal, in Judgment 4417. The Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8) […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he reply submitted by ITU to the Appeal Board in the internal appeal procedure could not, in itself, be regarded as a decision. Furthermore, even if it did constitute a decision, in view of the preceding considerations, that decision would have stemmed from a purely factual error and so would not, in any event, have created any rights (see Judgments 3483, consideration 6, 2906, consideration 11, and 1111, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 2906, 3483
Keywords:
administrative decision; clerical error;
Judgment 4765
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to open an investigation is not a decision that adversely affects a complainant since it does not affect her or his legal situation and, in particular, does not cause any change in her or his status. It is therefore not open to appeal (see Judgments 4607, consideration 6, 4039, consideration 3, 3236, consideration 12, and 2364, considerations 3 and 4). It should be recalled that any objections that a complainant may raise against such a decision, which is merely a step in the investigative procedure, may be brought up in a challenge to the final decision taken at the end of that procedure (see, for example, Judgments 4475, consideration 6, and 3958, consideration 15, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236, 3958, 4039, 4475, 4607
Keywords:
administrative decision; opening of an investigation;
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; flaw; identical facts; investigation; joinder; personal file;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Ordinarily, a document addressing a staff member’s performance or conduct can, appropriately, be placed on the staff member’s personnel file. However, if the document is legally flawed, an order could be made requiring its removal (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 8). In the present case, the letter of 17 December 2020 might arguably be legally flawed, if there was a flawed process of investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997
Keywords:
administrative decision; conduct; flaw; investigation; order; personal file;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Administrative decisions cannot be characterized harassment solely because they are unlawful (see Judgments 4241, consideration 9, and 2861, consideration 37).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 4241
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment;
Judgment 4741
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not consider that the Director General’s reply [...] in fact conveyed an administrative decision since it merely informed the complainant of the possible means of redress. Her complaint against that decision is therefore irreceivable.
Indeed, in Judgment 3847, [...] the Tribunal recalled the following [...]:
"The letter of 20 August 2015 [...] merely informed her, correctly, that she had no right to seek to have the decision of 27 May 2015 appealed through the internal process. It did not convey any administrative decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3847
Keywords:
administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4737
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
"a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;
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.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant’s claims concerning the report of the Compensation Committee as such must be dismissed as irreceivable since the opinion issued by an advisory body of that kind is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the decision taken on the basis of that opinion and does not itself cause injury to the complainant (see, for example, Judgment 4464, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4464
Keywords:
administrative decision; advisory body;
Judgment 4675
136th Session, 2023
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the reclassification of her employment relationship and the consequential regularisation of her pension entitlements.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that a decision that does not alter the legal situation of an official is not a decision that adversely affects her or him and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4038, consideration 3, 3428, consideration 13, 2364, consideration 4, or 764, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 2364, 3428, 4038
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment 4672
136th Session, 2023
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the title of his post following his reinstatement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction centres on whether there has been a reviewable administrative decision which, in turn, implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgments 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, and 532, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 3141, 4499
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; reinstatement; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The refusal to meet the complainant’s request in the letter of 18 July 2019 had no legal effect on the complainant. As neither the impugned decision nor the decision of 12 September 2019 had a legal effect on the complainant, there was no challengeable administrative decision in this case. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords:
administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to refuse to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
It is true that in this case the impugned decision does not, strictly speaking, concern a refusal to appoint an official to a post but a refusal to place her on a roster. The question is therefore whether such a refusal adversely affects a staff member in itself or, in other words, whether the fact of not being placed on such a roster is capable of having a legal effect.
The grounds for the impugned decision explicitly state that placement of a staff member on the roster does not confer an advantage in itself, as it does not create an entitlement to be considered for a particular job since any application is considered against the specific terms of assignment.
However, the Tribunal observes that, in urgent and exceptional circumstances, a manager may select a candidate who fulfils all the criteria for the vacant post directly from the roster. It follows that the fact of refusing placement on a roster is capable of producing legal effects and adversely affecting the person concerned, without there being any need to determine in these proceedings whether such a mechanism is compatible with all the other rules and regulations applicable to Interpol staff members. Accordingly, that refusal is a decision open to internal appeal.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Secretary General’s decision to declare the complainant’s internal appeal inadmissible rests on an obvious error of law.
The Tribunal considers that the Secretary General’s decision raises particular concern given that Staff Rule 13.1.3, which allows him to prevent appeals from being considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, involves the fundamental safeguard provided to staff members of exercising the right of appeal against decisions that affect them and that this rule must therefore be applied extremely cautiously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; internal appeal; right of appeal; roster;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
