Implied decision (36, 37,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Implied decision
Total judgments found: 74
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 1611
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It was open to the complainant to withdraw the obviously premature complaint [...] and lodge a new one which complied with the time limit in Article VII(3) [of the Tribunal's Statute]. What his counsel supplied [...] was no new complaint but merely a version of the original one corrected in compliance with the Registrar's instructions. So for the purpose of a ruling on his observance of the time limit his complaint is still the [the original one]." The claim in that complaint being therefore premature, it is for that reason irreceivable too.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; correction of complaint; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1541
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Refusal to answer an appeal is not obstruction: the litigant may still appeal to the Tribunal against the implied rejection. [...] Moreover, the President of the Office pleads the need to keep down the amount of internal litigation so as not to overload the administration with pointless work and expenditure. He has thereby assessed the Organisation's interests and made an exercise of discretion with which the Tribunal may not interfere in the circumstances of this case."
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; discretion; executive head; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal;
Judgment 1464
80th Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant contends that her complaint is receivable because she may act under Article VII(3), the organization having failed to take its decision on her appeal within the sixty days' time limit set in that provision. But her reading of VII(3) is mistaken. It does not require that the process of appeal be completed within sixty days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1462
79th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 398, considerations 1 and 2.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE EUROCONTROL AGENCY
ILOAT Judgment(s): 398
Keywords:
case law; complaint; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 1455
79th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 532, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; complaint; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1344
77th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Statute provides that a complaint will not be receivable unless the complainant has exhausted such other means of resisting the decision as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations. But it is plain from the case law that the Tribunal construes that article to mean that when a complainant has done all that is required of him to get a final decision, yet the proceedings appear unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time, he may appeal directly to the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 451, 499
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
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 1232
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant is challenging the implied rejection of a claim which he put to the Director-General but met with silence. The appeals body agreed to examine his appeal but the Director-General considered it irreceivable. The organization argues that no implied rejection arises from the Director-General's failure to answer a claim which he did not consider specific enough. Although the text of his claim is "somewhat vague about just what sort of action he wants, he makes it quite clear he is expecting redress for injury he blames on the organization. His letter therefore meets the requirements of the precedents actually cited by the defendant, which say that the staff member may infer rejection only when he has put formal claims plainly stating the nature of his demands."
Keywords:
case law; condition; failure to answer claim; implied decision;
Judgment 1229
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns the implied rejection which he infers from the organisation's silence on an internal complaint he logded against its refusal to take account of university degrees which he acquired while in the organisation's employ. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that a "complaint" may only be directed against an act adversely affecting an official. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant's letters to the Director General were mere statements of grievances that had no particular purpose" since he does not identify any duty towards him under the general conditions of employment that Eurocontrol may have failed to discharge there cannot have been any "act adversely affecting" him and for want of an appealable decision, even implied, his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; career; cause of action; decision; degree; failure to answer claim; implied decision; 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;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant has brought two similar complaints challenging [the same] decision. [...] He explains that since the time limit for answering his internal appeal ran out [...] he inferred rejection and filed a complaint. He then left on holiday and not until he got back - by which time his first complaint had already been filed - did he receive the letter of rejection. So it was only by way of precaution that he filed the second complaint, within the time limit, against that express decision. In the circumstances the two complaints are receivable and may be joined."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Appeal Board, which had new evidence before it, agreed to reopen the internal proceedings. It then reported that it was unable to make a further recommendation. The Director General took no further express decision. But that "does not preclude the complainant from impugning the implied decision that followed the resumption of hearings by the Board on the strength of new evidence. The outcome of the resumed hearings must be subject to review by the Tribunal even though the implied decision is the same in purport as the original decision."
Keywords:
case reopened; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeals body; new time limit; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the complaints have met the requirements of [article] VII [of the Tribunal's Statute] and the time limits therein the plea of irreceivability fails. The organisation's belated decisions expressly rejecting the appeals do not alter the substance of the dispute, which turns on the rejection to be inferred from expiry of the time limit in [Article]VII(3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; late decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1066
70th Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
On 15 March 1990 the complainant's counsel wrote to the Director-General asking him to grant her the benefit of termination on abolition of post. In its reply of 29 March CERN indicated that the matter was being examined. The complainant filed her complaint on 21 May 1990 under Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute. As no rejection of her claim be inferred in the circumstances of the case, the complaint is premature.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 941
65th Session, 1988
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The organisation maintains that the complaint was time-barred as it was not filed within ninety days of the implied decision to reject it arising out of the administration's silence. The Tribunal holds that "the organisation may not plead its own failure to act. The complainant had good reason to infer [and had done his utmost to ensure] that his claim was still under review."
Keywords:
complaint; failure to answer claim; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; negligence; organisation; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 905
64th Session, 1988
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Under Article VII[1] of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless it challenges a final decision or, under VII[3], an implied one. Since the organisation did not take an express final decision within 60 days of the date on which the complainant notified his claim by letter of 4 June 1987, his claim is receivable under VII[3] in the same manner as one challenging an express final decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 3.2.1 AND 5.3 OF THE CIPEC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 902
64th Session, 1988
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The only kind of decision against which appeal will lie to the Tribunal [is] one taken by the appointing authority, and whether it is individual or general, express or implied, does not matter."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general decision; implied decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 887
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"Appeal will lie either against an express decision, described as an 'act adversely affecting' the official, or against rejection inferred from failure to answer a claim. In the latter case, where the decision is implied, the prerequisite is the lodging by the official of a formal appeal with the administration."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
