ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Administrative decision (708,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 51

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4807


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
    “With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, 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 of 12 July 2007. 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 of 21 June 2007.”
    […] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
    Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4804


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant further asks the Tribunal to order that document CA/03/12 be withdrawn and to declare that the respective General Advisory Committee (GAC) consultation was flawed and invalid. The Tribunal notes that document CA/03/12 was not a decision, much less a final decision, but merely the President’s proposal for the amendment of Article 70a of the Service Regulations and Circular No. 301 (Rev. 1). Therefore, it is not challengeable before the Tribunal (see Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6). […] Therefore this claim is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;



  • Judgment 4799


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that in a judgment regarding the issue of alleged interference in the work of the Examining Division, the Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action;



  • Judgment 4798


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that the complainant’s claims alleging undue interference in her work in the Examining Division have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal, in Judgment 4417. The Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8) […].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action;



  • Judgment 4777


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]he reply submitted by ITU to the Appeal Board in the internal appeal procedure could not, in itself, be regarded as a decision. Furthermore, even if it did constitute a decision, in view of the preceding considerations, that decision would have stemmed from a purely factual error and so would not, in any event, have created any rights (see Judgments 3483, consideration 6, 2906, consideration 11, and 1111, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 2906, 3483

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; clerical error;



  • Judgment 4765


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to open an investigation is not a decision that adversely affects a complainant since it does not affect her or his legal situation and, in particular, does not cause any change in her or his status. It is therefore not open to appeal (see Judgments 4607, consideration 6, 4039, consideration 3, 3236, consideration 12, and 2364, considerations 3 and 4). It should be recalled that any objections that a complainant may raise against such a decision, which is merely a step in the investigative procedure, may be brought up in a challenge to the final decision taken at the end of that procedure (see, for example, Judgments 4475, consideration 6, and 3958, consideration 15, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236, 3958, 4039, 4475, 4607

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; opening of an investigation;



  • Judgment 4753


    137th Session, 2024
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; complaint dismissed; flaw; identical facts; investigation; joinder; personal file;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Ordinarily, a document addressing a staff member’s performance or conduct can, appropriately, be placed on the staff member’s personnel file. However, if the document is legally flawed, an order could be made requiring its removal (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 8). In the present case, the letter of 17 December 2020 might arguably be legally flawed, if there was a flawed process of investigation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; conduct; flaw; investigation; order; personal file;



  • Judgment 4746


    137th Session, 2024
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    Administrative decisions cannot be characterized harassment solely because they are unlawful (see Judgments 4241, consideration 9, and 2861, consideration 37).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 4241

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; harassment;



  • Judgment 4741


    137th Session, 2024
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal does not consider that the Director General’s reply [...] in fact conveyed an administrative decision since it merely informed the complainant of the possible means of redress. Her complaint against that decision is therefore irreceivable.
    Indeed, in Judgment 3847, [...] the Tribunal recalled the following [...]:
    "The letter of 20 August 2015 [...] merely informed her, correctly, that she had no right to seek to have the decision of 27 May 2015 appealed through the internal process. It did not convey any administrative decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3847

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4737


    137th Session, 2024
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
    ‘a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions’.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;



  • Judgment 4728


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4709


    136th Session, 2023
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant’s claims concerning the report of the Compensation Committee as such must be dismissed as irreceivable since the opinion issued by an advisory body of that kind is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the decision taken on the basis of that opinion and does not itself cause injury to the complainant (see, for example, Judgment 4464, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4464

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; advisory body;



  • Judgment 4675


    136th Session, 2023
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the reclassification of her employment relationship and the consequential regularisation of her pension entitlements.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that a decision that does not alter the legal situation of an official is not a decision that adversely affects her or him and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4038, consideration 3, 3428, consideration 13, 2364, consideration 4, or 764, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 2364, 3428, 4038

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;



  • Judgment 4672


    136th Session, 2023
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the title of his post following his reinstatement.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s jurisdiction centres on whether there has been a reviewable administrative decision which, in turn, implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgments 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, and 532, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 3141, 4499

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; complaint dismissed; reinstatement; title of post;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The refusal to meet the complainant’s request in the letter of 18 July 2019 had no legal effect on the complainant. As neither the impugned decision nor the decision of 12 September 2019 had a legal effect on the complainant, there was no challengeable administrative decision in this case. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4619


    135th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to refuse to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
    It is true that in this case the impugned decision does not, strictly speaking, concern a refusal to appoint an official to a post but a refusal to place her on a roster. The question is therefore whether such a refusal adversely affects a staff member in itself or, in other words, whether the fact of not being placed on such a roster is capable of having a legal effect.
    The grounds for the impugned decision explicitly state that placement of a staff member on the roster does not confer an advantage in itself, as it does not create an entitlement to be considered for a particular job since any application is considered against the specific terms of assignment.
    However, the Tribunal observes that, in urgent and exceptional circumstances, a manager may select a candidate who fulfils all the criteria for the vacant post directly from the roster. It follows that the fact of refusing placement on a roster is capable of producing legal effects and adversely affecting the person concerned, without there being any need to determine in these proceedings whether such a mechanism is compatible with all the other rules and regulations applicable to Interpol staff members. Accordingly, that refusal is a decision open to internal appeal.
    It is clear from the foregoing that the Secretary General’s decision to declare the complainant’s internal appeal inadmissible rests on an obvious error of law.
    The Tribunal considers that the Secretary General’s decision raises particular concern given that Staff Rule 13.1.3, which allows him to prevent appeals from being considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, involves the fundamental safeguard provided to staff members of exercising the right of appeal against decisions that affect them and that this rule must therefore be applied extremely cautiously.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; internal appeal; right of appeal; roster;



  • Judgment 4618


    135th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s settled case law in this area, a decision not to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
    While the Secretary General also referred in his decision to the broad discretion enjoyed by an international organisation’s executive head in a selection procedure, that issue, which relates to the review of the merits of decisions taken in this area, has no bearing on the receivability of appeals directed against those decisions.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; discretion; internal appeal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4607


    135th Session, 2023
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegation that the opening of an investigation against her involved abuse of authority and the decision not to investigate her allegations against the Acting Director of the Internal Oversight Division.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [A]ll that happened […] was that an investigation was opened. As [the Organization] points out in its reply, correctly, a decision to open an investigation is not a final decision that can give rise to a cause of action in the Tribunal, citing Judgment 3236, consideration 12.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; opening of an investigation;



  • Judgment 4572


    134th Session, 2022
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recission in which he described the moral injury caused to him by the entry into force of new regulatory provisions.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant seeks the setting aside of the Appeals Committee’s opinion that preceded the decision of 16 June 2021.That claim must also be rejected as clearly irreceivable because, according to established case law, such an opinion does not constitute an act adversely affecting the complainant and therefore cannot be appealed (see Judgment 4477, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4477

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4540


    134th Session, 2022
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from its Statute. In an early case it was described as “a [c]ourt of limited jurisdiction [...] bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence” (see Judgment 67, consideration 3). One of the Tribunal’s central roles, founded on Article II of the Statute, is to enforce compliance with staff regulations where they have not been observed. The touchstone of its jurisdiction is, in this respect, lawfully adopted staff regulations or rules of international organisations. The provisions in the staff regulations and rules are the starting point in the exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Staff Rule 1230.7.2 which provides that the final decision in an appeal is made by the Director, must be respected and given full effect. The Director was authorised to make the decision in the appeal in the present case and her decision was not tainted by illegality as alleged by the complainant.
    Cases do arise in the Tribunal where the decision appealed against and the decision in the appeal are made by the same person, but the latter decision involves a rejection of recommendations of the appeal body. The discussion in the preceding consideration is not intended to suggest that in such cases there is no real scrutiny by the Tribunal of that latter decision and the reasons given. To the contrary, there is. The Tribunal’s case law is replete with examples where the motivation for the rejection has been found to be inadequate and the decision in the appeal has been set aside (see, for example, Judgments 4427, consideration 10, 4259, considerations 11 and 12, and 4062, consideration 4). This approach has the effect of respecting rules conferring, ordinarily, on the executive head of an organisation the power to make the final decision in an appeal even if an appeal from a decision of that person, while recognising the vitally important role appeal bodies play and the need to give considerable weight to findings and recommendations they make.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 4062, 4259, 4427

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competence of tribunal; conflict of interest; final decision;



  • Judgment 4535


    134th Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate him from service on 31 October 2018, being the date on which he reached his retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The exhibit containing the memorandum of 9 November 2018 […] also contained the decision of the Director-General signed on 13 November 2018. The format of the memorandum is not atypical in administrative decision-making, particularly by senior officials. The format involves a brief written by a subordinate setting out the facts even if in a summary way and, if qualified, advancing their own preliminary views about the merits of the case being addressed (or repeats in a summary way the views of other qualified officials) while inviting the senior official to make their own decision often by electing between one or a number of choices to be simply signified by, literally, ticking a box. In this case, the Director-General did just that by ticking a box saying that he did not grant the exceptional extension for the complainant. However, it cannot be inferred, as the complainant invites, that the Director-General did not bring to bear his own views and reach his own conclusion, after reading the memorandum of 9 November 2018, about whether the complainant’s appointment should be extended notwithstanding the view recorded in the memorandum that HRD did not support granting the exceptional extension.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top