Judgment 1393
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason of public policy why an organisation should not entertain a claim, even when it is premature, pending the notification of an individual decision. That is the approach that the EPO took when, instead of warning the complainant forthwith that his appeal was premature, it entertained his claims - just as it entertained all the others - and forwarded them, after what it described as preliminary study, to the Appeals Committee. So it was in breach of good faith in objecting to receivability before the Committee at a time when the time limits set off by its individual decisions had already run out. The Tribunal accordingly holds that under the circumstances the complainant is right to plead that he was caught in a procedural trap."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; date; general decision; good faith; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1279, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1279
Keywords:
case law; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent rulings by the Tribunal make it plain that the act which is challengeable and so sets off the time limit will ordinarily be some individual decision notified to the staff member. Only that decision affords him unquestionable and final notice that the time limit is set off and that he will have to act if he wants to assert his rights."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 323, 398, 624, 625, 626, 902, 963, 1081, 1101, 1134, 1148
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; date of notification; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1368
77th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"For the reasons given in Judgment 1329, under 6, the complainants may not directly seek the quashing of the Council's decision [...]. They may, however, challenge the individual decisions in their pay slips [...] by pleading the unlawfulness of the [Council's decision] and the infringement of any acquired rights they lay claim to under rules or contract."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329
Keywords:
acquired right; application for quashing; breach; contract; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1329
76th Session, 1994
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Firm precedent has it - see for example Judgment 1000 [...] - that an international civil servant may, in challenging a decision that affects him directly, plead the unlawfulness of any general measure that affords the basis for it in law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1279
75th Session, 1993
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The purpose of time limits is to make for the stability in law that both sides require. Management has an interest in knowing that the decisions it takes are beyond challenge; and the staff too need to know, especially when administrative action is taken at successive stages from the general to the particular, just when they may act without fear of having their suit rejected as premature or time-barred."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1265
75th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 1000, under 12, the Tribunal held that "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, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one". The complainants may therefore challenge "the lawfulness of any measure taken by the Commission that serves as the basis for the decisions affecting them, whatever method may have been adopted to import it into the organization's own rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complainant; decision; decision-maker; general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; judicial review;
Judgment 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant objects to the refusal by Eurocontrol's Sickness Fund of her claim to the refund of costs incurred for treatment. The organisation notified this decision to her by an office memorandum and it constituted an individual decision. "The organisation [...] has wide discretion in the matter and may exercise it as it sees fit for the purpose of ensuring the efficiency and financial soundness of its fund. There is more than one legal procedure it may resort to. It may adopt general rules [...] or else it may take individual decisions on particular cases."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; discretion; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses;
Judgment 1134
72nd Session, 1992
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In keeping with precedent and with [Article] VII(1) [of the Statute] 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) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
administrative instruction; condition; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
Judgment 1131
71st Session, 1991
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not review a policy set by the General Conference, but it does review individual decisions taken to give effect to such policy".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision; general decision; individual decision; judicial review; legislative body;
Consideration 2
Extract:
In keeping with a resolution adopted by the General Conference in response to budgetary constraints UNESCO had to make staff cuts. "According to the definition of its competence in its Statute, the Tribunal will not review the policy followed by the Director-General in furtherance of the Conference's decision. It will, however, consider whether there was any flaw in the Director-General's exercise of his authority in an individual case."
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; decision; enforcement; executive head; general decision; individual decision; judicial review; legislative body;
Judgment 1123
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of a 1.53 per cent "reduction" applied to his pay in pursuance of a decision by Eurocontrol's Permanent Commission to bring in a 5 per cent differential between pay in the European Communities and within the organisation. The Tribunal holds that "the objection that there has been no statement of the reasons is unsound: the staff have known all along the reasons for the adjustments, which have been fully discussed in the context of the cases. There was therefore no need to state reasons for the individual decisions [...]. The Tribunal may [not] review the reasons of policy underlying the general decision." Besides, the reasons fall within the ambit of Article 65.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; competence of tribunal; duty to substantiate decision; general decision; grounds; individual decision; judicial review; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1118
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainants seek the quashing of a 1.25 per cent "reduction" in the repayment of education expenses in keeping with a decision taken by Eurocontrol's Permanent Commission to bring in a 5 per cent differential between net pay at Eurocontrol and net pay in the European Communities. The Tribunal holds that "the objection that there has been no statement of the reasons is unsound: the staff have known all along the reasons for the adjustments, which have been fully discussed in the context of the cases. There was therefore no need to state reasons for the individual decisions [...]. The Tribunal may [not] review the reasons of policy underlying the general decision." Besides, the reasons fall within the ambit of Article 65.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 65 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; competence of tribunal; duty to substantiate decision; education expenses; general decision; grounds; individual decision; judicial review; reduction of salary; refund; salary;
Judgment 1101
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants, who are employees of Eurocontrol, seek the quashing of an Office Notice insofar as it informs staff that expenses arising from trace-element therapy (oligo-elements), aromatherapy and phytotherapy are not to be refunded. The Agency pleas that the complaint is irreceivable. "It is worth pointing out that in Judgment 961 [...] of 27 June 1989 the Tribunal held that it was 'competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes' and would not make prior rulings of general purport. Again in Judgment 1081 [...] of 29 January 1991 it affirmed that no appeal would lie against a general decision provided that it was such as needed in all cases to be followed by a challengeable individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 961, 1081
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants are challenging an Office Notice that merely informs them that expenses incurred for certain forms of treatment will not be refunded. "There will be a decision challengeable under Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute only when Eurocontrol has, in accordance with its rules, refused a staff member refund of the cost of a particular sort of treatment. The Tribunal will then rule according to the criteria it stated in Judgment 1088 of 29 January 1991, taking medical advice if need be. It may not make a prior ruling of general application to the sorts of treatment covered by the Office Notice."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1088
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competence of tribunal; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund;
Judgment 1081
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The fact "that the measure under challenge affects several groups of staff and is therefore general in purport [...] does not in itself make the complaints irreceivable: decisions do not need to be individual to be challengeable before the Tribunal. As Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute makes plain, a general decision too is challengeable. That article sets the time limit for filing a complaint against 'a decision affecting a class of officials', in other words a general decision. Yet that does not mean that a complaint challenging any sort of general decision will necessarily be receivable: there is also the rule in VII(1) that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; date; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainants want to have the revised weighings with retroactive force from 1 January 1981 taken into account for determination of the "Eurocontrol reduction" imposed on their salaries. The impugned decision does not "put figures on the entitlements of each of the complainants it applies to. [...] In the circumstances the complainants may not now challenge the validity of the general decision they are objecting to. Before they come to the Tribunal they must be able to cite individual decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; cost-of-living weighting; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1054
69th Session, 1990
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The substance of the obligation [to state the reasons for a decision] will vary with circumstances. iI will not be the same when the decision is general as when it is individual; when management has some degree of discretion as when its authority is circumscribed; when the decision may be adverse as when it is [...] intended to bestow a benefit."
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 1012
68th Session, 1990
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The decision to reduce pay at Eurocontrol was confirmed on 12 November 1987. "Though the pay slips [giving effect to the reduction] are plainly unlawful because the Commission's decision still had to come into effect, they apply only to the period they cover and cannot be treated as giving effect to a decision that had not yet become final. Not a single complainant has challenged an individual decision subsequent to 12 November 1987. The Tribunal is therefore bound, regrettably, to declare the claims irreceivable insofar as they object to future reductions in pay."
Keywords:
application for quashing; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In line with the principles the Tribunal affirmed in Judgments 624 and 902 the complainants may challenge the Director General's decisions to apply the general measures to them and may thereby also challenge the lawfulness of the commission's decisions. [...] The defendant's objections to receivability fail insofar as they relate to the pay slips the complainants received in July, August and September 1987" and which informed them of reductions made to their salary.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 902
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 963
66th Session, 1989
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants received notification in their pay slips of a 0.7 per cent reduction in the refundable amount of education expenses which they had incurred. The organisation contends that the pay slips merely confirmed earlier decisions, viz. a general decision of 7 July 1987. The Tribunal holds that the impugned decisions were individual ones that cause the complainants injury, and not confirmations of earlier decisions.
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; deduction; education expenses; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; refund; salary;
Judgment 961
66th Session, 1989
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4, Summary
Extract:
The Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol took a decision of policy to bring about a differential of up to 5 per cent between staff pensions in the European Communities and pensions in Eurocontrol. The complainants are challenging a general decision, not individual decisions. Not one of the complainants has retired. "Since the amount of the complainants' pension contributions is not under challenge, all that is material in this case is the amount each complainant will get when he retires. The Tribunal will not make a general ruling, being competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes, and it therefore declares the complaints irreceivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; legislative body; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary;
Judgment 936
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The decisions determining the complainants' pay are [...] void because they rest on an invalid general decision of the Council's."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; executive body; flaw; general decision; individual decision; judicial review;
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 847
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant claims that Circular 144 on the reckoning of seniority for promotion should be withdrawn. The claim is irreceivable inasmuch as "the complainant is not challenging an individual decision but objecting to certain general rules in the Circular. As the Tribunal has held before - for example in Judgment 625 [...] - a complaint impugning a general decision against which no direct internal appeal will lie is irreceivable until individual decisions are taken on the strength of the general decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 625
Keywords:
administrative instruction; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 832
62nd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
As a result of the adoption of a new scale of pensionable remuneration, Article 3.1.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations was amended. "The complainants' case does not rest on breach of any term of their contracts or of any provision of the Staff Regulations. What they are saying is that as applied to them Article 3.1.1 of the Regulations impairs their acquired rights. Their complaints will therefore be receivable if the application of 3.1.1 does cause them injury."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; competence of tribunal; condition; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; receivability of the complaint; scale; staff regulations and rules;
