General decision (33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 157
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5195
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of his application to stand for election to the Staff Committee.
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
Outre l’annulation de la décision attaquée et l’indemnisation du préjudice matériel et moral prétendument subi, le requérant demande l’«abrogation» de la circulaire no 355 relative au Règlement électoral du Comité du personnel.
Il convient toutefois de noter que la circulaire no 355 précitée a été annulée par le jugement 4482, en raison, notamment, de l’atteinte qu’elle portait au droit à la liberté d’association. Il s’ensuit que la demande du requérant tendant à l’annulation de cette circulaire est devenue sans objet (voir, à ce sujet, le jugement 5062, au considérant 5). Cependant, le Tribunal considère que la requête conserve un objet dans la mesure où l’intéressé sollicite une indemnisation au titre du préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi du fait de l’application individuelle de cette circulaire dans son cas.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4482, 5062
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
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:
[L]e Tribunal a déjà précisé, ainsi qu’il l’a rappelé dans les jugements 5164, au considérant 10, 5165, au considérant 9, et 4593, au considérant 7, que le principe général protégeant le droit d’être entendu d’un fonctionnaire ne saurait s’appliquer à une décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4283, au considérant 6). La même jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer dans l’hypothèse où, comme en l’espèce, la décision litigieuse n’est que la conséquence pure et simple d’une telle décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4593, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283, 4593, 5164, 5165
Keywords:
general decision; right to be heard;
Judgment 5164
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 withdraw his “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal a d’abord déjà précisé que le principe général protégeant le droit d’un fonctionnaire d’être entendu ne saurait s’appliquer à une décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4283, au considérant 6). La même jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer dans l’hypothèse où, comme en l’espèce, la décision litigieuse n’est que la conséquence pure et simple d’une telle décision générale (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4593, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283, 4593
Keywords:
general decision; right to be heard;
Judgment 5078
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges general decisions CA/D 22/09 and CA/D 2/14, as well as the individual decisions rejecting his respective requests to participate in the 2013 and 2014 Staff Committee elections.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint dismissed; freedom of association; general decision; staff regulations and rules; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 5076
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the method for making payments into the healthcare insurance fund.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will address the receivability issues raised by the EPO, alleging that the complainant challenged a general decision that did not directly affect him and was not yet in force at the time the internal appeal was lodged.
According to the Tribunal’s case law, complainants can impugn general decisions only if they directly affect them and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied to them in a prejudicial manner. However, they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of a general decision when impugning the implementing decision that generated their cause of action. Moreover, a general decision can be challenged immediately when it does not require an implementing decision and it immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 4898, consideration 2, and 4563, consideration 7).
In the present case, the complainant lodged an internal appeal against Circular No. 336, Section 2, on 26 January 2012, when that Section of the Circular was not yet in force in relevant respects. Indeed, Section 2 of the said Circular described the general method to be applied from 2014 onwards. Moreover, the complainant has not demonstrated that his situation fell within the scope of Section 2 of the Circular, which concerns staff whose spouses are in gainful employment, but without their own medical insurance. There is no evidence in the record that the complainant was paying insurance contributions for a spouse at the time when he lodged his internal appeal (see Judgment 4899, consideration 5). Thus, the complainant has not established that Circular No. 336 was directly and immediately applicable to him, to his detriment. In conclusion, the complaint is irreceivable in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563, 4898, 4899
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 5062
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest Circulars Nos. 355 and 356 concerning the elections of staff representatives and the resources and facilities granted to them, as well as decision CA/D 2/14, introducing the “social democracy” reform.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 4940
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[E]n tant que le requérant entendrait contester les procédures de restructuration du Secrétariat de l’OEACP de même que la révision du Statut du personnel, il y a cette fois lieu de noter que la requête est également irrecevable sur ce point. En effet, en vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision générale ayant vocation à servir de fondement à des actes individuels n’est, sauf hypothèses très particulières, pas susceptible de recours et son illégalité peut seulement être invoquée par voie d’exception, dans le cadre de la contestation de ces actes individuels adoptés sur la base de cette décision générale (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4734, au considérant 4, 4572, au considérant 3, 4278, au considérant 2, 3736, au considérant 3, ou 3628, au considérant 4). Le Tribunal constate que le requérant n’invoque pas une telle exception d’illégalité en l’espèce (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734, 4759
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 4939
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[E]n tant que le requérant entendrait contester les procédures de restructuration du Secrétariat de l’OEACP de même que la révision du Statut du personnel, il y a cette fois lieu de noter que la requête est également irrecevable sur ce point. En effet, en vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision générale ayant vocation à servir de fondement à des actes individuels n’est, sauf hypothèses très particulières, pas susceptible de recours et son illégalité peut seulement être invoquée par voie d’exception, dans le cadre de la contestation de ces actes individuels adoptés sur la base de cette décision générale (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4734, au considérant 4, 4572, au considérant 3, 4278, au considérant 2, 3736, au considérant 3, ou 3628, au considérant 4). Le Tribunal constate que le requérant n’invoque pas une telle exception d’illégalité en l’espèce (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734, 4759
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 4938
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[E]n tant que le requérant entendrait contester les procédures de restructuration du Secrétariat de l’OEACP de même que la révision du Statut du personnel, il y a cette fois lieu de noter que la requête est également irrecevable sur ce point. En effet, en vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, une décision générale ayant vocation à servir de fondement à des actes individuels n’est, sauf hypothèses très particulières, pas susceptible de recours et son illégalité peut seulement être invoquée par voie d’exception, dans le cadre de la contestation de ces actes individuels adoptés sur la base de cette décision générale (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4734, au considérant 4, 4572, au considérant 3, 4278, au considérant 2, 3736, au considérant 3, ou 3628, au considérant 4). Le Tribunal constate que le requérant n’invoque pas une telle exception d’illégalité en l’espèce (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4759, au considérant 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734, 4759
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 4899
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests modifications made to the healthcare insurance contribution.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; time bar;
Judgment 4898
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of the permanent invalidity lump sum.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, complainants can impugn general decisions only if they directly affect them, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to them, but they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action. Moreover, a general decision can be immediately challenged where it does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 4563, consideration 7). In the present case, the complainant has contested general decision CA/D 2/15 to the extent that it abolishes the permanent invalidity lump sum. The complainant has contested it together with an individual decision, that is the complainant’s April 2015 payslip, showing that premiums for the invalidity insurance are no longer deducted from his salary and, as a result, that the complainant is no longer entitled to the lump sum in case of permanent invalidity. It is apparent that the individual decision, that is the April 2015 payslip, implements the general decision and, thus, the general decision has been contested when it was applied in a manner prejudicial to the complainant. Indeed, as of April 2015, the complainant is no longer requested to pay the premium for the invalidity lump sum, because he is no longer entitled to the lump sum after the general decision entered into force.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563
Keywords:
general decision; invalidity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint dismissed; general decision; invalidity; payslip;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the salary adjustment at issue – cannot be impugned, save in highly specific cases, although its lawfulness may, on an exceptional basis, be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions taken on the basis thereof (see, for example, Judgments 4795, consideration 3, 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734, 4795
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4805
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests Circular No. 359 on the European Patent Office closure policy in 2015.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In his pleas before the Tribunal, the complainant makes no attempt to establish even an arguable case that this general decision either negatively impacted on him immediately or this was likely (Judgment 4119, consideration 4). In the absence of any argument which might persuade the Tribunal that this essential foundation of his case was even arguably correct, it is not open to the complainant to immediately develop lengthy arguments about the abolition of the [General Advisory Committee], the composition of the General Consultative Committee […] and whether consultation occurred or was necessary, and additionally challenge the internal appeal process. These last-mentioned matters are without purpose in the absence of any case concerning the lawfulness of the content of the Circular.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4119
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4802
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the European Parent Office closure policy in 2015 and 2016.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;
Judgment 4793
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that staff members may only challenge a general decision to the extent that they impugn an individual decision, stemming from that general decision, concerning them (see, for example, Judgment 3494, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3494
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Three of the decisions which the complainant challenges as unlawful and seeks to have set aside are general decisions. [...]
However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s claim for these decisions to be set aside is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue and the two decisions of 20 September 2019 – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s submissions in the complaint, these general decisions are not among the exceptions recognised in the Tribunal’s case law according to which general decisions may be challenged when they do not require implementing decisions and immediately and adversely affect individual rights (see in this connection Judgments 4551, consideration 5, and 4550, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4550, 4551
Keywords:
general decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the memorandum [...] which the complainant describes as a general decision, the Tribunal observes that it is in fact a collective decision making various individual appointments against the backdrop of the planned restructuring to ensure that management functioned smoothly during a transition period before recruitment procedures were initiated or final appointment decisions adopted. However, even supposing that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging these appointments, he stated in his internal complaint of 20 September 2019 that he did not seek to cause injury to his colleagues appointed and that he therefore remained at the Organisation’s disposal to discuss possible alternatives to cancelling the decision not to appoint him and to appoint his colleagues. The complainant did not request that one or more recruitment procedures be initiated for these various positions, nor did he later challenge his colleagues’ final individual appointments by the Organisation on 12 November 2019. It follows that his request for the memorandum of 5 July 2019 to be set aside is lacking in substance in any event and is therefore irreceivable as being moot.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; claim moot; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 13
Extract:
In Judgment 4609, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that its case law “requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties [...] (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7)”. Similarly, in Judgment 4399, consideration 9, the Tribunal noted that “a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken” was necessary. While it is true that this case law concerned individual transfers and not a collective transfer as in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the Organisation is wrong to submit that this requirement does not apply here because there is nothing in its Staff Regulations and Rules of Application imposing such an obligation in the context of a collective transfer carried out in the interests of the service.
Firstly, the absence of a binding provision to this effect in the applicable rules cannot permit an organisation to disregard the principles established by the Tribunal’s case law. Secondly, the fact that the transfer was collective rather than individual does not exempt the Organisation from this fundamental requirement. Although the Tribunal’s case law has it that the general principle protecting a staff member’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see, for example, Judgments 4593, consideration 7, and 4283, consideration 6), in the present case, even if the impugned decision was collective in scope, it was obviously not impersonal. The Tribunal considers that a decision which, as in this case, notifies specifically identified staff members of their new individual postings with effect from 4 July 2019 cannot be considered an impersonal decision.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by Eurocontrol’s argument that it would not be “conceivable or even possible” for an organisation to consult individually each staff member before a collective transfer on the scale of that at issue in the present case, which affected over 600 staff members. The Organisation cannot refer to the scale of the collective transfer in support of its argument that it was not required to allow every staff member to comment before transferring her or him, even if this was done in a manner that was adapted and appropriate to the particular situation of this major reorganisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4283, 4399, 4451, 4593, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; general decision; right to be heard; transfer;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant further requests that the Director General’s internal memorandum of 4 July 2019 be set aside, but that claim is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4759
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is settled case law that a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned, save in highly specific situations, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
general decision;
Judgment 4734
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the «administrative decisions» contained in Office Instruction No. 20/2021 in connection with the payment of a language allowance.
Considerations 4 & 5
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that Office Instruction No. 20/2021 is a general decision which applies to all staff members in the General Service category. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a complainant cannot directly challenge a decision of that type unless it requires no implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 4430, consideration 14, and 3761, consideration 14). As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3736, consideration 3, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned and the lawfulness of that general decision may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see also Judgments 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 4119, consideration 4, 4008, consideration 3, 3628, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
[T]he new provisions contained in Office Instruction No. 20/2021 have no immediate effect on the complainant’s situation. The complainant will have the opportunity to challenge this general decision, if need be, in the context of a future challenge to the individual decisions that may be taken on its basis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 3761, 4008, 4119, 4278, 4430, 4572
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
