Individual decision (38,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Individual decision
Total judgments found: 95
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"A general decision which establishes the obligations and/or rights of a group of officials, without requiring an implementing decision, may be directly challenged; one example of this would be a decision concerning an electronic clocking-in system (see Judgment 2279 [...]). However, such a decision is not challengeable if its terms are not sufficiently clear in themselves to allow a challenge (see Judgment 2258, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2258, 2279
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; general decision; individual decision; official; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 2279
96th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
As regards receivability of a complaint challenging an administrative circular, "A distinction needs to be drawn [...] between instructions whose purpose is to tell the Administration how to apply the law, which have no direct bearing on the legal status of staff members, and administrative decisions which impose obligations on staff themselves, particularly decisions affecting an indeterminate number of staff." (in this case, it was an administrative circular dealing with the introduction of an electronic system for recording the attendance of staff members)
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; complaint; consequence; effect; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2095
92nd Session, 2002
Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that an organisation is ordinarily free to determine the pay of its staff, provided that it respects certain requirements arising from general principles of international civil service law [...] Furthermore, if the organisation has a rule granting certain rights to staff members in relation to their level of salary, it may not depart from that rule in individual decisions without amending it in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; case law; condition; discretion; formal requirements; general principle; individual decision; international civil service principles; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; right; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1896
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainants contest the Administrative Council's decision refusing to allow a staff representative on the Appeals Committee which can hear appeals against decisions of the Council. "Decisions of a general thrust relating to the attributions of power can be challenged forthwith, without having to wait until the body, whose composition is contested, delivers an unfavourable individual decision to the appellant".
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; decision; general decision; individual decision; internal appeals body; staff representative;
Judgment 1852
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1841
86th Session, 1999
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Commission is mistaken. The complainants do have a cause of action and may now challenge the new scales because on them will depend the duration of the "freeze" in their pay and the reckoning of any rise they may become entitled to. Pay scales must ordinarily be challenged forthwith. As the Tribunal has said before, if administrative decisions are to hold good and relations between organisation and staff to be stable, no appeal may lie against them at the time of later revision: see, for example, Judgments 1664 [...], 1682 [...], 1780 [...] and the other precedents there given. If someone on a frozen pay scale might wait to challenge the new scales, that would make for great uncertainty.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1664, 1682, 1780
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 1798
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A strong line of precedent has it that payslips are individual decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal. [...] Even though the council has reserved its right to alter pay for July 1996 later, and retroactively, the impugned decisions do show a cause of action."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; discretion; executive body; individual decision; payslip; tribunal;
Judgment 1786
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, the staff member must impugn an individual decision applying a general one and, if need be, may for that purpose challenge the lawfulness of the general one without any risk of being told that such challenge is time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1780
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(b)
Extract:
"Regular payments by an employer, whether in the form of salary or of some other benefit, amount to decisions that may be challenged at the time. Failing such challenge they become final and may be challenged thereafter only if there are grounds for review of administrative action."
Keywords:
allowance; condition; continuing breach; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;
Judgment 1682
84th Session, 1998
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The decisions taken by the [Organisation] each year on pay fully supersede earlier ones. In entertaining challenges to individual decisions on the complainants' pay [...] the Tribunal will look at the latest decision [...] on pay scales."
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; decision; general decision; individual decision; period; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Association's third objection is that the complainants are challenging the adoption of rules and in any event cannot impute any present injury thereto. According to precedent an international civil servant may in exceptional circumstances challenge the lawfulness of a rule that has been applied to him. The notification to the complainants of the changes in the system of reckoning and paying their retirement pensions constituted individual application of rules adopted by the member States of EFTA and set out in the contract with [a private insurance company]. Even though, as the defendant says, the complainants cannot yet show any injury, they do have a cause of action and may challenge, howsoever they wish, the lawfulness of the new pension rules."
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; executive body; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; pension; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1618
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants, who are permanent officials, object to a change in the Service Regulations which applies to officials under fixed-term appointments. "For the same reasons as those stated in Judgment 1451 the present complaints are receivable. What is at issue is not a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service. Such arrangements take the form of individual implementing decisions that each employee may eventually challenge [...]. What is at issue here is the adoption of rules on the employment of contract staff that may have indirect effects on the status of permanent employees as to their pay - if they have to bear a heavier financial burden - or as to their indirect involvement in the framing of EPO policy" as members of advisory bodies.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; exception; fixed-term; general decision; individual decision; permanent appointment; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1601
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already held - for example, in Judgment 1081 [...] under 4 - the mere fact that a decision affects a category of staff and is therefore a general one does preclude challenge. To quote Article VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute], which is about the time limits, a complainant may challenge 'a decision affecting a class of officials'. Yet not every complaint that challenges a general decision will be receivable. The complainant must comply with the requirement in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute that internal remedies be first exhausted. In keeping with that rule and with precedent - for example Judgment 1134 [...] under 4 - 'a complaint will be irreceivable if it challenges a general decision that must ordinarily be put into effect by individual decisions against which internal appeal will lie'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1081, 1134
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1520
81st Session, 1996
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The general decisions which the Assembly and Executive Council of the WTO took and which came into effect as announced in the circular affect the complainants' right to legal status in line with the common system, particularly as to the amounts of end-of-service entitlements, notice of dismissal and the general rules on retirement pensions. None of those provisions - some of which have indeed been dropped - directly infringes any of the rights that the complainants are asserting. They may, if they so wish, properly challenge any individual decision that applies to the provisions. Insofar as they are challenging the circular their complaints are therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; coordinated organisations; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a "decision refusing their claim to a promise from the Organization to preserve the rights they had under the old Staff Regulations and Rules. Any decisions that may be taken to give effect to the general rules will be challengeable provided that there is some actual dispute for the Tribunal to rule on. Here there is none. The complainants cite no individual decision that causes them injury. They may not contrive such dispute by seeking promises from the Organization."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1510
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An international civil servant may not ordinarily impugn a general rule that does not affect himself. Yet he may challenge any individual decision that does him injury; in so doing he may support his claims with any plea he likes; and he may thus plead breach of some general principle or of a written rule or clause of his contract that constitutes a term of appointment." The complainants are "just as free to plead flaws in the material rules as any mistakes of law or fact in assessing the peculiarities of their own position."
Keywords:
breach; cause of action; complaint; contract; general decision; general principle; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1442
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The EPO pleads that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that theinternal appeal came too long after the announcement of the disputed measure and the general decision to apply it to the staff. "The objection cannot be sustained. What the complainant is impugning is not those general decisions but theapplication of them to himself which would be the consequence of the EPO's holding to its - in his view mistaken - interpretation of them."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
