|
|
 |
|
|
Express decision (32,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Express decision
Total judgments found: 28
1, 2 | next >
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 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent with the Tribunal’s case law, the express decision in relation to this particular grievance can be treated as the impugned decision (see, for example, Judgment 3356, considerations 15 and 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356
Keywords:
express decision;
Judgment 4082
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the salary he receives at his new grade.
Consideration 2
Extract:
This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 27 April 2016, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to dismiss his internal complaint of 28 January 2015 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
This complaint, which was originally directed against an implied decision to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint, must now be regarded as impugning the express decision of 29 July 2015, taken in the course of the proceedings, by which the Director General informed the complainant of his decision to reject the internal complaint against the aforementioned decision of 4 August 2014 (for a similar case, see, for example, Judgment 3667, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
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.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction concerns, relevantly, the non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations. In the present case, the complainant would have been entitled to the payment of an invalidity allowance in the event that the Medical Committee determined he suffered from invalidity. The legal right or benefit arising under the Service Regulations was the payment of that allowance. In circumstances where payment of the allowance should have been made but was not, there has been a non-observance of the Service Regulations challengeable before the Tribunal. Plainly enough, as part of that challenge, the anterior determination of the Medical Committee can be challenged because it is foundational to the decision of the President to refuse to pay the allowance. But that does not render the determination of the Medical Committee a final decision for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, in principle, it would be open to the President to reject the opinion of the Medical Committee if she or he discerned some reviewable error on the part of the Medical Committee. The Medical Committee’s determination is a decision that constitutes a step towards the making of the final administrative decision amenable to challenge in the Tribunal (see Judgment 3433, consideration 9).
In some circumstances, the Tribunal has treated a challenge to what has been identified in the complaint as a decision but, in fact, was an anterior step to the challengeable final administrative decision, as a challenge to the final administrative decision itself. An example is found in Judgment 2715. In that case the Tribunal sought to identify what was intended by the complainant and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. This course is not open to the Tribunal in the present case. That is because the EPO in the reply explicitly and clearly raises the issue of the receivability of a complaint challenging a “decision” of the Medical Committee. Notwithstanding, the complainant explicitly and clearly adheres in the rejoinder to the position that this was what was being challenged, namely the “decision” of the Medical Committee. In these circumstances, there is no proper basis for imputing to the complainant an intention to challenge the decision of the President of 11 June 2012.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 3433
Keywords:
express decision; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4016
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint, though initially directed against an implied rejection of an internal complaint, should now be viewed as challenging the express decision taken during the present proceedings, on 13 December 2016 (see, in particular, Judgment 3667, under 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3667
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; implied decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 3695
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the EPO’s rejection of his two internal appeals against the Ombudsman’s failure to follow the formal procedure in respect of his harassment complaint and against the President’s decision to reject that harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is open to the Tribunal to treat the express decision as replacing the implied decision (see for example Judgment 3184, consideration 3), on the basis that the belated express decision is the decision the Tribunal should consider (see Judgment 3161, considerations 1 and 2). However, if the express decision is only provided by the defendant organization in its surrejoinder (as happened in this case) then the Tribunal needs to ensure that the complainant has an opportunity to comment on that decision in appropriate cases to ensure that the complainant is afforded procedural fairness.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3161, 3184
Keywords:
express decision; final decision; surrejoinder;
Judgment 3407
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]s the complainant took care in his rejoinder to impugn, “if appropriate”, the aforementioned express decision [...] which had been taken in the meantime, the complaint must be deemed to be directed against that decision (see, for a similar precedent, Judgment 3356, under 15 and 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356
Keywords:
express decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 3301
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant through five irreceivable complaints requested information concerning facts that occurred before his retirement for disability.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Organization rules reference: Articles 107, par. 2, and 109, par. 3, of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; decision; express decision; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 2740
105th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2629
103rd Session, 2007
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Ordinarily, there is no decision with respect to matters falling outside normal entitlements until a specific claim is made and either expressly or impliedly accepted or rejected (see Judgment 2538). [...] However, it is well settled that a decision does not require any particular formality and may be constituted by any communication that is reasonably capable of being understood to constitute a decision on the matter (see Judgments 532 and 2573)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2538, 2573
Keywords:
condition; decision; definition; express decision; formal requirements; implied decision; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;
Judgment 2082
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It is trite law to state that time limits cannot be presumed but must be either expressly stated or so clearly implied from the context as to leave no room for doubt."
Keywords:
definition; express decision; implied decision; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The constant thrust of the three earlier judgments was to secure from the organization [...] discharge of its obligation to communicate to [the complainant] a proper decision. He might then impugn that decision if it was not to his liking, and the Tribunal might if need be review the reasons for it, which is something it has not yet been able to do. The complainant is entitled to such decision as a matter of course, without having to ask for it and without delay. That obligation WIPO has stubbornly ignored, it is in breach of the rule of law in the international civil service, and that is not to be brooked."
Keywords:
application for execution; continuing breach; execution of judgment; express decision; international civil service principles; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; right of appeal;
Judgment 1328
76th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"As for [WIPO's] failure to take the 'new decision' ordered in point 2 [of the operative part of the judgment whose application is sought], it is in breach of good faith in forcing the complainant to the point of appealing against a refusal he has to infer from its own silence. Under point 2 it is required to give him an express and properly substantiated decision on the matter of reinstatement".
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; express decision; good faith; implied decision; organisation's duties; reinstatement;
Judgment 1270
75th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In accordance with Articles 106 to 113 [of the EPO Service Regulations] the filing of an appeal presupposes that the organisation has already taken a decision that adversely affects the staff member or that he has submitted to it a request for a decision he is entitled to under the Regulations. So the essence of the prescribed procedure is that it affords a means of having a decision reversed. The staff member may not secure a right of appeal by putting forward a claim to compensation that is unconnected with an express or implied decision challengeable under Article 106."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 106 TO 113 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
application for quashing; cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1246
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
In her first complaint the complainant challenges what she regards as the implied rejection of her claim; in her second one she impugns express rejection. "The cause of action and the parties' pleas being the same, the two complaints are joined and there is no need to rule on the organisation's objection. Since the second complaint is receivable the Tribunal will go into the merits."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; express decision; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 33-34
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, challenges the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post. "To refuse promotion to an official who has duly applied for a post in answer to a notice of vacancy does amount to a 'decision adversely affecting' him [...] it is immaterial whether the decision is express [...] or implied in the preference for another applicant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; promotion; refusal;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
