Receivability ratione materiae (844,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability ratione materiae
Total judgments found: 2

• Judgment 4230

  
  129th Session, 2020
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complaint is receivable insofar as the complainant is acting in his capacity as General Secretary of the UGSS and member of the SMCC and insofar as his complaint relates to the Organization’s alleged breach of its obligation to consult in good faith with the staff representative bodies prior to issuing the Circular.

  Keywords:

  receivability ratione materiae; receivability ratione personae; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4145

  
  128th Session, 2019
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer one of his subordinates to another team.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant’s assertion that as the decision “directly adversely affected” him and caused him injury, he has the requisite standing as stated in the case law to bring the present complaint is also unfounded. Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute has been interpreted to require that for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3426, consideration 16, in addition to the requirement that the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person as provided in paragraph 6 of the Article, paragraph 5 requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In Judgment 4048, consideration 5, the Tribunal elaborated that “to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment” and that “[t]he complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute)”. As the complaint does not relate to a decision involving the complainant’s terms of appointment or the provisions of the EMBL’s Staff Rules and Regulations, it does not disclose a cause of action and is irreceivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 4048
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; receivability ratione materiae;