Decision (24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Decision
Total judgments found: 431
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[S]elon une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la motivation d’une décision administrative doit permettre à son destinataire d’en connaître les raisons, notamment afin de mettre celui-ci à même de se déterminer en conséquence quant à l’éventuel usage de son droit de recours; elle doit également permettre aux autorités compétentes de vérifier si cette décision est conforme au droit et, en particulier, mettre le Tribunal en mesure d’exercer son pouvoir de contrôle (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 10, 4593, au considérant 6, 4081, au considérant 5, 3617, au considérant 5, ou 1817, au considérant 6). En l’espèce, le Tribunal constate que la motivation de la décision attaquée était à la fois détaillée et étayée et mettait bien l’intéressée en mesure de comprendre et de contester les raisons de celles-ci, comme en témoigne d’ailleurs éloquemment le contenu de ses écritures produites dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne et devant le Tribunal.
[…]
Enfin, sur le caractère erroné de l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges, la requérante soutient que la rédaction de cet avis était «mensongère» […] Si la rédaction de l’avis peut parfois sembler équivoque, la décision attaquée énonce clairement les motivations à son appui sans se limiter nécessairement à ce que cet avis contient, ce qui satisfait aux exigences applicables en la matière (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4368, au considérant 15, ou 4164, au considérant 11).
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 5139
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reappoint rather than reinstate him when he was re-employed by Interpol following a break of several months.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complainant asserts that being reappointed rather than reinstated was unfavorable to him, he has failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision adversely affected any of his rights. He has identified no provision of the Staff Regulations conferring an entitlement to reinstatement in his circumstances, nor has he shown that reappointment infringed his rights or legitimate interests or resulted in any loss of benefits. The complaint is therefore irreceivable for lack of a cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; decision;
Judgment 5130
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract further to the abolition of his position due to budgetary constraints.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it was based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4503
Keywords:
career; decision; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has further held that its role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgments 4953, consideration 4, 4834, consideration 2, and 3367, consideration 11). As explained in Judgment 3163, consideration 8, and reiterated in Judgments 4953, consideration 23, and 4834, consideration 9, it is necessary for the complainant to establish that “the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3163, 3367, 4834, 4953
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; material error; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s position was not funded from a stable, regular budget line but from temporary funds. IOM retained the discretionary power to adjust allocations as operational needs required and was under no obligation to maintain a budget allocation that was no longer in the best interest of the Organization.
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; organisation's interest;
Judgment 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[C]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 4343, consideration 4, 4106, consideration 12, and 3872, consideration 2). The case law also states, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, that the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgments 4749, consideration 5, 4227, consideration 6, and 3862, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862, 3872, 4106, 4227, 4343, 4749
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, when addressing a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and protection of acquired rights, the above rule will not apply […].
In the present case, in its recommendations, the [internal appeals body] stated that the complainant’s misconduct had to be assessed under the rules in force at the time it occurred […].
[….] The Tribunal concurs with this reasoning insofar as it concerns the assessment of misconduct, the disciplinary measure, and its further consequence, i.e. the recording of the disciplinary decision in the personal file. Indeed, a general principle concerning disciplinary measures is that the applicable rules are those in force at the time the misconduct occurred, unless new rules are more favourable to the perpetrator, in which case the new rules apply.
However, regarding the statutory rules concerning the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and internal appeals, the Tribunal maintains, in light of its case law, that the applicable rules were those in force when the proceedings were carried out and the related decisions were issued."
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity;
Judgment 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The contention that the allegations against the Director should have been decided by the CIPM as a whole, rather than by its President, is unfounded. The CIPM is the Director’s appointing authority, and, pursuant to the relevant rules, it is competent to terminate the Director’s appointment, to initiate a disciplinary action against the Director, and to take the decisions related to the conditions of employment of the Director. The relevant rules do not expressly address the issue at stake in the present proceedings, but the structure of the rules as a whole makes it sufficiently clear that they intend to confine the CIPM’s competence to the main decisions directly involving the Director, that is to say the appointment, the termination of the appointment, the conditions of employment, and does not include harassment proceedings lodged by other staff members and involving the Director, unless the decision to be taken is a disciplinary sanction against the Director. In the present case, the process in question was not a disciplinary process against the Director, but a process prompted by a harassment complaint. The competent authority was, in principle, the Director, and, as the Director could not decide upon a harassment complaint lodged against himself, he was lawfully replaced by the CIPM President and not by the CIPM as a whole.
Keywords:
decision; decision-maker; harassment; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
As to the contention that the CIPM President and the Director were both in a conflict of interest, the Tribunal recalls its precedents concerning conflicts of interest. The Tribunal’s case law states that it is a general rule of law that officials who are called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to their jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which their impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It further states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, the officials may consider themselves able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see, for example, Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 4234, consideration 3). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6).
In light of the Tribunal’s case law, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest with regard to the CIPM President. Firstly, contrary to the complainant’s contention, there is no evidence in the file that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed any of the complainant’s claims. In his 24 February 2021 decision, the CIPM President only acknowledged that over the years he “was kept informed of the situation, and [he] had personal experience of how some of the issues were handled”. Secondly, in any event, even if it were to be assumed that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed some of the complainant’s claims, this mere fact does not prove that he had prejudice against the complainant when he decided the harassment complaint.
As to the Director’s alleged conflict of interest, the Tribunal considers that his impartiality was open to question on reasonable grounds. The complainant’s harassment complaint [...] accused the Director and four other officials of harassment. The complainant contended that he was the victim of an orchestrated harassment, and that not only did the Director harass him, he also tolerated the alleged hostile work environment, and, instead of seeking to manage the strained working relationships, he “let them develop and expand”. The Director was one of the five officials subject to the external investigation and was interviewed during the investigation process. In such a situation, the Director could not decide upon the harassment allegations lodged against himself. Nor could he decide on the harassment allegations lodged against the four other officials. Indeed, the complainant did not report separate and independent harassing behaviours by each of the accused officials individually, but, rather, an orchestrated harassment against him and accused the Director of tolerating that harassment against him. Thus, the allegations against the Director and the four other officials were interconnected and, in deciding the allegations against the four officials, the Director might have had an interest in denying the harassment in order to shield himself from the allegation of having tolerated it. The Director should have recused himself from the whole case and not only from deciding upon the allegations against himself, which is what he did in his 12 November 2020 email, by which he delegated to the CIPM President the authority to decide upon only the allegations against himself.
The mere fact that the Director decided to close the case against the other four officials only after the CIPM President had closed the case against the Director, did not eliminate the conflict of interest. On the one hand, the Director’s failure to delegate the decision-making authority on the whole case to the CIPM President was unlawful. On the other hand, the CIPM President’s decision on the allegations against the Director was a decision open to challenge. Thus, for as long as the CIPM President’s decision was open to challenge, the Director maintained an interest in deciding the allegations against the other four officials in a way which would not negatively affect his personal position with regard to the related harassment allegations brought against him.
In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the Director had a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw from the case completely. This alone casts doubt on the Director’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the Director would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. In brief, since the complainant reported an orchestrated harassment against him, the case should not have been split into two separate decisions; it should have been decided as one case in a single decision by the CIPM President. Accordingly, the decisions adopted by the Director […] are unlawful as they are tainted with a conflict of interest. […]
The Tribunal’s finding on the Director’s conflict of interest constitutes a decisive and fatal flaw in the impugned decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4234, 4240, 4616, 4617, 4711
Keywords:
conflict of interest; decision; decision-maker; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Judgment 4864
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to withhold two months’ salary to comply with a national Court order.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Even if the 29 January 2020 decision were to be interpreted according to the meaning that the 17 April 2019 provisional order had been revoked with retroactive effect, this is relevant only between the parties to the civil dispute, that is the complainant and his estranged spouse, not with regard to third parties such as UNAIDS. UNAIDS paid school fees, on behalf of the complainant, which, at the relevant time, were owed by the complainant pursuant to a Court order. The 29 January 2020 decision of the Tribunal of first instance of Geneva established that French Courts, and not the Swiss ones, were competent on the marital disputes concerning the custody, alimony, and other expenses regarding the complainant’s children. However, the complainant has not provided the Tribunal with evidence that he is no longer responsible for the school fees in whole or in part.
Keywords:
debt; decision; domestic law;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for interest for late payment on the sums that were repaid to her. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decision had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions, and the corresponding interest, conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and implied that interest for late payment could be considered only if URSSAF or the French authorities paid such interest. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainants’ claims for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letters of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainants for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4295
130th Session, 2020
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to impose a disciplinary measure against him.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 4145, consideration 5, Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute requires that “for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge” (see also Judgment 3426, consideration 16).
In his pleadings, the complainant stresses that in his appeal he only challenged “that aspect of the decision that found he had made a secret recording”. It is evident and not disputed that the complainant takes the position that the statement in section II(h) of the 8 May 2017 letter forms part of the decision articulated in that letter under the heading “Decision”. This position is flawed as it disregards the distinction between a finding of fact and a decision. As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 3861, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein, “the term ‘decision’ means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect”. A finding of fact, however, forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision. In Judgment 3997, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated that “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.” The Tribunal added, as consistently held in the case law, that “[o]bviously 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”.
The 8 May 2017 letter was divided into three sections: Procedure, Considerations and Decision. It is noted that the statement in section II(h), at issue in this proceeding, was one of the ten considerations in the section under the heading “Considerations”. On this basis alone, it is evident that the statement was one of the considerations underpinning the decision and not a decision. Moreover, on the face of it, it is clear that the statement “there is evidence that the recording took place” is a finding of fact and not a decision as contemplated in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. As for the decision itself, it was beneficial to him and, in that respect, he has no cause of action. It follows that the complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 3861, 3997, 4145
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; impugned decision;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds.
Keywords:
decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he warning letter provided for in Section A(6) of Circular No. 246 is not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report (see Judgments 3806, consideration 6, 3697, consideration 5, 3629, consideration 3, 3512, consideration 3, and 3433, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697, 3806
Keywords:
decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he decision regarding the house ban, as well as the suspension decision, even if they are essentially interim measures to safeguard the investigation, 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 mere steps to the final decision of the proceeding. As such, the request for review of these decisions was receivable [...].
Keywords:
decision; measure of distraint; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[P]aragraph 8 of [Instruction] IN/217 does not mandate notification to be in writing. The notification of the termination decision may have taken any form which informed the complainant of the subject decision (see Judgment 3505, consideration 8, and the judgments cited therein). Having been verbally notified of the termination decision on 1 March 2015, the complainant’s deadline for sending a request for review was 30 April 2015.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505
Keywords:
decision; formal requirements; judicial review;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a distinction must be made between a decision to abolish a post and a decision to terminate an appointment (see, for example, Judgment 3755, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; decision; termination of employment;
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 3806
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his appeal against a warning letter concerning his performance and the subsequent confirmation of that warning.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a warning letter under Circular No. 246 is merely a step in the procedure that leads to the drafting of a staff report and that, as such, it cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal nor be taken into account to the detriment of the employee (see, for example, Judgments 3697, 3629, 3512 and 3433). The complainant considers that this case law should not apply to his complaint because the warnings at issue involved harassment. However, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3233, under 6, an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it. In the present case, the Tribunal is bound to observe that the complainant’s allegations of harassment are entirely unsubstantiated and amount to mere assertions. Accordingly, the Tribunal sees no reason to depart from the case law mentioned above concerning warnings issued under Circular No. 246.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3433, 3512, 3629, 3697
Keywords:
decision; step in the procedure;
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 3711
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the EPO not to treat his internal appeal as such.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; complaint dismissed; decision; summary procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 | next >
|
