Administrative decision (708,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 51
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4531
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 August 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of her appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he failure of the Director-General to initially consider the extension request himself, was remedied by him doing so in the administrative review. An aspect of this is reflected in the Tribunal’s case law, which decides that the mere fact that a decision was initially flawed but was later corrected does not suffice to warrant awarding damages for moral injury (see Judgment 4156, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; moral damages;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect constitutes [an administrative] decision (see, for example, Judgments 532, consideration 3, 1674, consideration 6(a), 2573, consideration 10, or 3141, consideration 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment 4454
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to reject his allegations of misconduct on the part of the Secretary-General.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In its pleas UNWTO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the basis that there was no relevant administrative decision by the Ethics Officer. At least implicitly there was (see, for example, Judgment 3747, consideration 5), and it involved a determination that there had been no harassment or retaliation, which was manifest by the decision to close, and thus finalise, the complaints.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3747
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4417
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests instructions she received concerning patent applications.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
In consideration 11 of Judgment 3053, the Tribunal held, among other things, 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. The Tribunal also held, in consideration 10 of Judgment 3053, that proposals and/or decisions relating to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not directly affect the relationship of staff members with the Organisation, although, as recognised in Judgment 2874, decisions or proposals as to the implementation of changes to the law and/or procedures may well do so.
The Tribunal does not see any reason to depart from the conclusions stated in the foregoing consideration.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2874, 3053
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action;
Judgment 4399
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant was not notified of this transfer until the meeting of 12 November 2009 at which he was informed orally that the decision had been taken. Despite the Organisation’s arguments to the contrary, that notification cannot be considered as a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken.
Keywords:
administrative decision; right to be heard;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal underlines [...] that the situation [...] resulting from the fact that different qualification requirements were specified in the provisions applicable to the competition, was not only liable to introduce a regrettable ambiguity into the determination of selection procedures for candidates – as the IOC appeared to consider – but was quite simply unlawful. Indeed, the Executive Director could not lawfully decide, while allowing the qualification requirements in the job description to remain in force, to specify different requirements in the competition notice, since the statement in the memorandum of 1 December 2016 to the effect that the provisions set out in that notice would not be applied insofar as they were contrary to those specified in the job description was not capable of remedying their unlawfulness.
Since the contested competition had been opened unlawfully, the requirement that administrative decisions be taken lawfully dictated that it be cancelled, as it would otherwise have led to an appointment to the post in question which would itself inevitably have been unlawful.
This implies not only that the decision [...] was taken in the interest of the service and hence based on a legitimate reason, so that, pursuant to the [Tribunal's] case law [...], the Executive Director was entitled to adopt it, but also that, in this case, he was in fact bound to do so.
Keywords:
administrative decision; competition; lawfulness of a measure;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The main purpose of the statement of reasons for an administrative decision is precisely to enable the staff member concerned to know the reasons for that decision so that she or he can decide whether to exercise her or his right of appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1817, consideration 6, 3117, consideration 9, 3617, consideration 5, or 3914, consideration 15). Thus, while it is true that the Tribunal’s case law accepts that the reasons for a decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself and can be contained in other documents, this is plainly on the condition that those documents are also communicated to the official concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2112, consideration 5, 2927, consideration 7, or 4081, consideration 5).
Since the IOC did not comply with this requirement, the complainant’s right of appeal was breached, and the fact that the complainant was provided with the [...] note in these proceedings could not, in the Tribunal’s view, suffice to rectify the effects of that breach in this case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2112, 2927, 3117, 3617, 3914, 4081
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4297
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant suggests he would have been prejudiced by advice he said he received from the OPCW that his challenges to the appointment of the investigators did not involve a reviewable administrative decision and thus, it is said, he waived the right to file a complaint before the Tribunal in relation to the decision concerning the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. The submission fails to recognise that a decision concerning the composition of an investigating panel is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision and may, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the final decision (see, for example, Judgment 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4293
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
UNIDO submits that the complainant’s challenge to the decision to advertise the P-2 post externally is irreceivable. It argues that that decision was a separate and distinct decision which the complainant should have appealed at the time that the vacancy was announced. This argument is unsustainable. The Tribunal stated, in consideration 17 of Judgment 4008, that, ordinarily, a vacancy announcement is neither a final administrative decision nor a decision which adversely affects an individual staff member. The complainant therefore properly contested the vacancy announcement at the time that he did.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008
Keywords:
administrative decision; new claim; vacancy notice;
Judgment 4283
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The general principle that an official has the right to be heard before an individual decision that adversely affects her or him is taken plainly cannot be applied to an impersonal decision which is collective in scope, such as the cancellation of a competition.
Keywords:
administrative decision; competition cancelled; right to be heard;
Judgment 4259
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The duty to provide reasons for an administrative decision that adversely affects an official is a fundamental requirement in international civil service law and the Tribunal’s case law requires such a decision to be motivated in order for the official to know the basis on which it was taken and to facilitate her or him to formulate an appeal from the decision if necessary. However, the Tribunal has accepted that the reasons for a decision may be provided in response to a subsequent challenge of the decision (see, for example, Judgment 3662, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3662
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4225
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her requests to reclassify her post and to grant her a special post allowance at grade P-3.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4201
128th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Staff Association to reject his application for legal support in connection with a complaint he had filed with the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; ratione materiae; summary procedure;
Judgment 4168
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Eurocontrol could not retroactively reduce it without breaching the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts (see Judgment 3185, under 7(b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185
Keywords:
administrative decision; non-retroactivity;
Judgment 4164
128th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; that they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review, and that how extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4104
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; complaint dismissed; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
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 4048
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her allegations of institutional harassment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
[C]entrally underpinning the complaint is what is characterised as a decision of 14 January 2016. Necessarily, to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment. The complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute).
The letter of 10 December 2015, addressed to a Danish Minister, adverted to the allegation of institutional harassment and, in substance, was encouraging the Minister to take the opportunity of distancing himself from what the complainant perceived as a failure within the EPO to investigate the claimed harassment. The Tribunal can readily infer the letter was trying to bring about political pressure coming from the Minister directed to Mr K. The letter of 10 December 2015 did not in terms call upon the Minister to take any steps beyond, possibly, declaring his opposition to the “egregious and irregular treatment” of the complainant. It certainly did not demand or even request the vindication of a right, provision of a benefit or the enforcement of a duty or obligation of the type comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Moreover the responsive letter of 14 January 2016 did not address or concern, in so far as it directly responded to the letter of 10 December 2015, a non-observance of the type arising under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. In addition, it was written by Mr K., to the extent he was responding to the letter of 14 January 2016, in his capacity as Director General of a State government organ. Whatever he said in that capacity could not be treated as conduct of the EPO. Nonetheless, it may be thought that part of the letter should be treated as a response by Mr K. in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Council. However even if it was, it said nothing conclusively or determinedly about the complainant’s rights. There was not, in this respect, an administrative decision determining or resolving the complainant’s legal rights.
The character of the impugned decision in the letter of 24 January 2017, to the extent that it was the endpoint of a chain commencing with the letter of 10 December 2015, is determined by what preceded it. It was not, in this respect, a decision concerning a matter addressed by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4039
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Organization recalls, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to decide whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
However [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
Keywords:
administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4038
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to determine whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
However, [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
Keywords:
administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
