|
|
 |
|
|
Administrative decision (708,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 51
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 3992
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a Note sent to all staff concerning a staffing plan.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he staffing plan is not an administrative decision subject to challenge. The staffing plan is just that – a plan developed by the Director-General setting out a proposed structure for the Technical Secretariat that also identifies and proposes the organisational and staffing changes needed to bring about the new structure for the Technical Secretariat. [...] [I]t is also observed that the text of the staffing plan does not include any decision. Moreover, the [...] decision of the Conference of the States Parties tasking the Director-General with the development of a staffing plan for the Technical Secretariat required that the implementation of any of the staffing plan proposals must be submitted to the OPCW’s policy-making organs for consideration.
Keywords:
administrative decision; reorganisation;
Judgment 3861
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal points out that the term “decision” means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 3141, under 21). Having examined the two aforementioned emails, one containing a suggestion to the complainant and the other informing her of guidelines applicable within the ICC, it is obvious that they do not constitute administrative decisions. Moreover, in Judgment 2644, under 8, the Tribunal explained that “[t]here are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action [...] as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]).However, where, [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, [...] it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2629, 2644, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 3849
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisation’s rules and regulations.
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It might be thought that the clear intimation from the Director of HRM that the contract would not be renewed should be viewed as conditional and thus should not be considered notification of a decision not to renew the contract. That is to say, it should not be taken to be notification of a final decision because there remained to be determined, before such a decision could be made, whether another position might be found for the complainant. However, the fact that a communication such as this might advert to further steps being taken to reassign or re-deploy an official, does not, of itself, result in the communication not being notification of a decision not to renew (see Judgment 634, consideration 2). Equally, however, in the event of non-renewal there must be a definite decision not to renew coupled with notification to the official (see Judgment 2104, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 634, 2104
Keywords:
administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Judgment 3840
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that the memorandum of 2 October 2013, objectively construed, did not, in all the circumstances of the case, constitute an administrative decision in respect of which review could be sought under the Staff Rules (see Judgment 2739, consideration 13). There is an obvious qualification in the first paragraph set out earlier that what the complainant was being told in a letter about his entitlements was conditional. That is to say it was subject to the outcome of attempts to find another position for the complainant. These matters had been the subject of discussions between the complainant and UNIDO in September 2013. It is true that paragraph 7 speaks, explicitly, of when the complainant’s last day of work would be. However that paragraph should not be taken out of context and, in particular, the context created by the first paragraph. Moreover, and significantly, no decision had, at this time, been made not to renew the complainant’s contract and such a decision was not made by the Director General until 29 October 2013, which was a matter known to the complainant when he lodged his internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2739
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment 3839
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerns the rejection of the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is well established that any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect constitutes a challengeable decision (see Judgment 3141, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment 3833
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[E]stablished precedent has it that pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1798, under 6, and 3614, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798, 3614
Keywords:
administrative decision; payslip;
Judgment 3761
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]n the context of determining the receivability of the complaints, it is an administrative decision of general application. In general, this type of decision is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However, there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights. In the present case, the impugned decision directly and adversely affects the complainants’ rights as it precludes the complainants’ important right to participate in the decision-making process […]. As the complaints satisfy the requirements of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3749
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of additional income tax paid by her husband.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative decision may take any form if its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation, as is the case here (see, in particular Judgments 2573, under 8, 2629, under 6, and 3141, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2573, 2629, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3538
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their April 2007 payslip showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is often the case that a court will be required to adjudicate on an issue where the opinion of an expert is an essential element in determining the outcome. Obvious examples would be the cause of illness and the prognosis of a staff member claiming some type of sickness benefit or sickness leave. Expert medical opinions would ordinarily underpin a court’s determination of whether an entitlement to the benefit or leave was established. It would be in rare cases indeed that a court would determine such issues on the basis of arguments advanced by non-experts in the field in question, however intelligent or knowledgeable they may be in other fields of human endeavour.
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical examination; medical opinion;
Judgment 3141
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
However, such anomalies cannot prevent a decision from being challenged, because international organisations would otherwise be able to avoid any appeal against a decision by not adopting it in writing, or by not notifying it in the prescribed manner, which would have harmful effects. Furthermore, the case law of the Tribunal has it that an administrative decision may take any form and that, even if it is not put in writing, its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation (see, in particular, Judgments 2573, under 8, or 2629, under 6). It is well established that any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect constitutes a challengeable decision (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 1674, under 6(a), or the aforementioned Judgment 2573, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 2573
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 2951
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; payslip; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
