Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 82
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4269
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former EPO employee subjected to a “house ban”, seeks to impugn the decision to reject his requests for review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It is clear from the file that the email [...] from the Conflict Resolution Unit, which confirmed that the complainant’s challenge to the house ban imposed on him was being addressed through the internal appeal procedure, does not constitute a final decision for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
final decision; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4220
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for an agreed separation.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[The complainant] contends inter alia that the fact that the impugned decision was not signed by the Director-General raises legitimate doubts as to who made the decision. This argument must be rejected. The letter from the Director of HRM [...] clearly states that “[t]he Director-General has asked me to inform you of the following [...]”. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3177, consideration 12, the authorized decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision and it is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 4207
129th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he IAEA takes the position that having regard to the OIOS’s operational independence, as provided in the OIOS Charter, the Director General was constrained by the findings and conclusions of the OIOS Report and by the standard of proof necessary to establish harassment identified by OIOS, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is convenient to address this submission at this point. It is observed that the operational independence of OIOS, as provided for in the OIOS Charter, concerns the independence of its internal operations. It does not in any way constrain or implicate the Director General’s decision-making authority nor does it preclude judicial review of the OIOS’s findings and conclusions underpinning a Director General’s final decision. Accordingly, this submission is unfounded.
Keywords:
final decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4203
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests, inter alia, his reinstatement to his former post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the difference between this complaint and the previously filed one lies in the fact that it is directed to the present rather than the former President of the EPO. Complaints filed against a final decision are made against the Organisation and not against the particular person who took the decision. Therefore, the change in President from time to time has no effect on the decisions taken prior to the change or on any judgments which regarded such decisions.
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4167
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal also notes that this refusal to disclose resulted in the Committee being unable to give a proper opinion on the merits of the internal complaint. The Director General thus rendered his final decision without the benefit of such an opinion, thereby disregarding an essential safeguard inherent in the right of appeal, which is the requirement that his final decision be informed by the opinion of the Committee. The decision is thus tainted with another irregularity.
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; investigation report;
Judgment 4157
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2013 was irregular and contests the partial modification thereof.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Even though the compensation awarded by the Director General was insufficient, the latter’s decision is not such as to cause additional moral injury in the complainant’s case.
Keywords:
final decision; moral injury;
Judgment 4131
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the President of the Office to reject his appeal against the referral of his case to the Appeals Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complaint is irreceivable. Although the complainant has formally exhausted the internal means of redress available to him, his internal appeal was directed against what was merely a step in the process which would culminate in a final decision on his appeal. According to the case law, the steps leading to a final decision can be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning that final decision (see, for example, Judgment 3961, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein; Judgment 3958, consideration 15; and Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860, 3958, 3961
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 2
Extract:
With respect to the claims directed against the “decision” of the Medical Committee [...], the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such,cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office [...]. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee [...].
Keywords:
final decision; internal procedure; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4117
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the finding that his invalidity was not caused by an occupational disease.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 4046, consideration 5, 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, consideration 4. In that case the Organization concerned objected to receivability, inter alia, because the complaint was mistakenly directed against the Administration Committee’s preliminary opinion, rather than the Secretary General’s final decision. The Tribunal sought to identify what the complainant intended by the complaint and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. While, explicitly, the complainant had challenged and sought to set aside the “decision” of the Administration Committee, the Tribunal treated the complaint as being directed against the final administrative decision of the Secretary General. This course is open to the Tribunal in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 4046
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 4113
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; final decision; receivability of application;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[The complainant's] claims of harassment are [...] irreceivable [...] pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute because there are no final decisions on them.
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Though the complainant raised the issue of conflict of interest of the Head of the Legal Service and the Head of Administration and Personnel, neither the Appeals Board nor the Secretary General in his final decision addressed this fundamental issue.
The existence of the above-mentioned conflict of interest is enough of a vitiating procedural flaw to require the setting aside of the decisions [...].
Keywords:
conflict of interest; final decision; internal appeals body; procedural flaw;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Disciplinary Committee found no misconduct and recommended no sanction. In the decision of [...], the Secretary General failed to explain why the Disciplinary Committee’s analysis and conclusions on both the question of guilt and the question of sanction were wrong (see Judgment 3969, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final 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 3997
126th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hat ordinarily engages the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is a challenge to a final decision with operative legal effect and not a challenge to the reasons underpinning that decision. Obviously if there is a final decision with an operative legal effect then a challenge to that decision can also impugn the reasoning leading to it.
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Considerations 10 and 16
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. [...]"
[In the present case], the President has failed to adequately motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant acted in bad faith, and failed to adequately motivate his ultimate conclusion on the disciplinary sanction he imposed and the reasons for it with specific reference to all mitigating circumstances. His decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the EPO to enable the President to make a new decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
