|
|
 |
|
|
Administrative decision (708,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative decision
Total judgments found: 69
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
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:
[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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3617, 4081, 4593, 4923
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation;
Judgment 5161
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 open disciplinary proceedings against him, as well as the decision to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 2
Extract:
«Le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de relever dans les jugements 4632, au considérant 4, et 3961, au considérant 4, qu’un fonctionnaire n’est pas recevable à contester la procédure disciplinaire conduite à son encontre, y compris l’ouverture de celle-ci, tant qu’une décision n’a pas été rendue à l’issue de cette procédure. Ce n’est qu’une fois que la procédure disciplinaire aura abouti et qu’une décision aura été rendue qu’un fonctionnaire pourra contester cette décision, ainsi que tout autre aspect de la procédure. Il est de jurisprudence constante que des procédures peuvent comprendre plusieurs étapes qui mènent à une décision définitive susceptible d’être attaquée, mais ces étapes ne peuvent elles-mêmes être contestées isolément. Permettre le contraire risquerait d’engendrer d'inutiles recours individuels qui paralyseraient les procédures (voir les jugements 3876, au considérant 5, 3700, au considérant 14, 3512, au considérant 3, et 3433, au considérant 9). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4632
Keywords:
administrative decision; disciplinary procedure; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
“Administrative decisions that are legitimate managerial acts underpinned by reasonable explanation cannot be construed as acts of harassment in the absence of any evidence that they were made with any intention other than the proper execution of managerial duties (see Judgment 3192, consideration 16; see also, a contrario, Judgment 4345, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 4345
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgments 4369, consideration 5, and 3905, consideration 15). However, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgments 3933, consideration 8, and 3172, consideration 16), for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. Moreover, it is open to a complainant to impugn a redeployment process, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3933, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172, 3905, 3933, 4369
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 5138
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests Interpol’s disclosure of a medical report in separate proceedings before the Tribunal.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
“[F]or the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, a reviewable administrative decision is any act by an officer of an international organization which has a legal effect (see Judgments 4846, consideration 10, and 4672, consideration 4). A decision that does not alter the legal situation of staff members is not a decision that adversely affects them, and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4846, consideration 10, and 4675, consideration 11). The Tribunal also held that a reply submitted by an organization to an internal appeal body in an internal appeal procedure cannot, in itself, be regarded as a decision (see Judgment 4777, considerations 10 and 11) […] by analogy with the case decided in Judgment 4777 […] legal defenses presented to the Tribunal by an organization, such as replies, surrejoinders, or further written submissions, cannot be construed as administrative decisions. These are communications addressed to the Tribunal by legal representatives or legal staff of the organizations concerned. They are not administrative decisions adopted by the officer-in-charge following required procedures and formally addressed to the staff concerned.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4672, 4675, 4777, 4846
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment 5123
141st Session, 2026
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
« Il est de jurisprudence constante que – indépendamment des règles particulières applicables aux décisions s’écartant des recommandations d’un organe de recours – 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 voies de recours et de mettre le Tribunal en mesure, le cas échéant, d’exercer son pouvoir de contrôle (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4923, au considérant 10, 4081, au considérant 5, ou 3617, au considérant 5). Or, en l’espèce, la Directrice générale s’est, sur ce point également, bornée à mentionner dans sa décision que «la décision contestée est [...] conforme aux textes de l’Organisation». Pareille motivation ne satisfait pas, du fait des mêmes défauts que ceux déjà relevés plus haut, aux exigences jurisprudentielles ainsi requises. »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3617, 4081, 4923
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation;
Judgment 5120
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for disclosure of several documents which, according to her, establish the exact circumstances of her husband’s death.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence;
Considerations 5 and 7
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law has consistently stated, in consideration 4 of Judgment 4672, for example, that a reviewable administrative decision, which is foundational to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see also Judgments 5093, consideration 4, 4928, consideration 3, and 4499, consideration 8). A decision that does not alter the legal situation of an official is not a decision that adversely affects her or him and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4846, consideration 10, and 4675, consideration 11).
In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the rejection of the complainant’s request for the disclosure of documents had no legal effect on her rights […]. In this regard, the [contested] letter did not constitute an administrative decision against which the complainant could lodge an appeal.”
“Inasmuch as the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable under the OPCW’s legal framework, it is also irreceivable in the Tribunal, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute […]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4499, 4672, 4675, 4846, 4928, 5093
Keywords:
administrative decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5093
140th Session, 2025
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant identifies a letter she received from the Human Resources as constituting the impugned decision and requests that it be set aside.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an act by an officer of an organisation constitutes an administrative decision only if it has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 4928, consideration 3, 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, 2573, consideration 10, 1674, consideration 6(a), and 532, consideration 3).
In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the 5 December 2023 letter, objectively construed, did not have any legal effect as its purpose was to inform the complainant that the health insurance provider would not change and to ask her whether she wanted to remain affiliated in 2024. […] As such, the 5 December letter did not contain in itself an administrative decision within the meaning of the abovementioned case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 3141, 4499, 4928
Keywords:
administrative decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5050
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste les décisions prises par l’Organisation concernant la demande de reclassement de son poste.
Considerations 3-6
Extract:
[I]l résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que, lorsqu’une décision s’inscrit ainsi dans le cadre de la procédure devant aboutir à une décision finale, elle doit être considérée comme un simple acte préparatoire et n’est dès lors pas susceptible d’être attaquée en tant que telle, mais peut seulement être contestée à l’occasion d’un éventuel recours dirigé contre cette décision finale (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4635, au considérant 5, 3893, au considérant 8, 3712, au considérant 3, 3433, au considérant 9, ou 2366, au considérant 16) […] Cependant, dans les circonstances très particulières de l’espèce, [cette jurisprudence] ne s’oppose pas à ce que la requérante puisse attaquer devant le Tribunal la décision du 13 décembre 2021 en tant que cette dernière a rejeté ses conclusions à fin d’attribution de dommages-intérêts […] cette décision, tout en constituant, comme il a été dit, un acte préparatoire à la décision finale […], a statué sur le recours interne formé par la requérante contre la décision du 4 mai 2020 ayant initialement annulé l’audit de poste litigieux. Or cette décision initiale constituait bien un acte faisant grief à l’intéressée, que celle-ci était par conséquent recevable à contester, et la décision du 13 décembre 2021 n’a que partiellement fait droit à son recours, puisqu’elle a rejeté ses conclusions indemnitaires. Il en résulte que la requête est recevable tant qu’elle vise à l’annulation de cette partie de la décision attaquée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3712, 3893, 4635
Keywords:
administrative decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The first question is whether this email, and these statements [...], constitute an administrative decision for the purposes of partly determining whether this complaint is receivable. As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11). This aspect of the principle applies in this case. Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5). In the present case the position taken by the IAEA was quite specific. The complainant, as viewed by the IAEA as a permanent resident (based on what the Austrian authorities considered constituted permanent residence status), would receive no repatriation allowance nor home leave. This, in the Tribunal’s opinion, gives rise to a cause of action and the complaint is thus receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4928
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her protest against what she identified as the “violation of staff rights to sick leave, medical privacy and duty of care”.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an act by an officer of an organisation constitutes an administrative decision only if it has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, 2573, consideration 10, 1674, consideration 6(a), and 532, consideration 3).
In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the 21 August 2018 email, objectively construed, did not have any legal effect. This is because that email only informed the complainant of possible measures which would be taken later regarding work assignments but did not contain in itself an administrative decision within the meaning of that case law. The complainant’s appeal was correctly rejected on that basis and the present complaint is clearly irreceivable for the same reason.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 1674, 2573, 3141, 4499
Keywords:
administrative decision; receivability ratione materiae;
Judgment 4922
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his complaint of moral harassment at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Le fait que [la] décision de classement [de la plainte] n’ait pas été formalisée par écrit ne fait pas, en soi, obstacle – aussi peu recommandable que puisse apparaître par ailleurs cette façon de procéder dans une matière sensible et fortement réglementée telle que le traitement des plaintes pour harcèlement – à ce que son existence soit reconnue. La jurisprudence du Tribunal admet en effet qu’une décision administrative puisse revêtir n’importe quelle forme, dès lors que sa matérialité ressort d’un contexte factuel démontrant qu’elle a bien été prise (voir notamment les jugements 3749, au considérant 5, 3505, au considérant 8, ou 3141, au considérant 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141, 3505, 3749
Keywords:
administrative decision; definition;
Considerations 8-11
Extract:
Le délai de recours était inopposable au requérant à un triple titre.
En premier lieu, il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que la charge de la preuve de la notification d’une décision administrative incombe à l’organisation concernée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3871, au considérant 9, 3034, au considérant 13, ou 2494, au considérant 4). En outre, il va de soi que cette notification n’est régulière que si elle permet au fonctionnaire intéressé d’avoir une connaissance exacte de la teneur de la décision en cause. Or, compte tenu des ambiguïtés, ci-dessus mises en évidence, que comportaient les indications fournies au requérant lors de la réunion du 5 décembre 2016, le Tribunal estime que, en l’espèce, la preuve d’une notification régulière de la décision prise par la Conseillère pour l’éthique n’est pas formellement rapportée, sachant que l’éventuelle notification officieuse dont celle-ci aurait fait l’objet ne saurait être reconnue comme valable. Dès lors, le délai d’un mois imparti par l’alinéa a) du paragraphe 7 des anciens Statuts du Conseil d’appel pour former une réclamation ne courait pas à l’encontre de cette décision.
En deuxième lieu, il sied de relever que, même si l’on admettait que la notification de la décision ait été régulière, le fait que Mme T. ait laissé sans réponse les courriels des 19 décembre 2016 et 10 janvier 2017 précités, et plus spécifiquement le premier, qui lui avait été adressé dans le délai d’un mois ainsi prévu, ferait obstacle à l’opposabilité de ce délai. Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, une organisation est en effet tenue, en vertu de son devoir de sollicitude à l’égard de ses fonctionnaires, de dissiper l’erreur dans laquelle se trouve un agent quant à l’exercice de son droit de recours, lorsqu’elle constate que celui-ci se méprend à ce sujet et qu’il serait encore possible pour lui d’agir en temps utile (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4369, au considérant 4, 2713, au considérant 3 d), et 2345, au considérant 1 c)). Dès lors qu’il ressortait du courriel du 19 décembre 2016, comme il a été dit, que le requérant n’avait pas compris qu’aucune décision écrite ne lui serait notifiée après la réunion, et étant donné que le délai de recours contre la décision du 5 décembre 2016 n’avait pas encore expiré à la date de ce courriel, il appartenait à la Conseillère pour l’éthique de clarifier ce malentendu afin de mettre l’intéressé à même d’user de son droit de recours. Le non-respect de cette exigence exclut, en tout état de cause, que la réclamation ultérieurement introduite puisse être regardée comme tardive.
En troisième lieu, il convient de souligner que […] le classement d’une plainte pour harcèlement relevait en réalité de la compétence de la Directrice générale, et non de celle de la Conseillère pour l’éthique. Or, il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, lorsqu’il ne ressort pas clairement des indications données à un fonctionnaire que celles-ci constituent la communication d’une décision administrative, «il peut exister des circonstances qui amènent le fonctionnaire à conclure raisonnablement qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une décision définitive» et qu’il en va ainsi «surtout si [...] rien ne permet de penser que la question en cause a été examinée par une personne habilitée à prendre une décision définitive en la matière» (voir notamment les jugements 3861, au considérant 5, 3849, au considérant 8, et 2644, au considérant 8). Le Tribunal estime que, dans la mesure où la Conseillère pour l’éthique n’avait ainsi pas compétence pour procéder au classement de la plainte du requérant et où ce dernier pouvait dès lors légitimement douter que les explications données par Mme T. lors de la réunion du 5 décembre 2016 visaient à lui communiquer une décision prise par celle-ci à cet effet, le présent cas d’espèce relève de cette jurisprudence. En telle hypothèse, le délai de recours ne court à l’égard du fonctionnaire concerné qu’à compter de la notification ultérieure d’une décision formelle.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 2494, 2644, 2713, 3034, 3849, 3861, 3871, 4369
Keywords:
administrative decision; duty of care; internal appeal; notification; time limit;
Judgment 4918
139th Session, 2025
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a P-4 position.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
The complainant has failed to demonstrate that there was a “new” administrative decision to challenge beyond the Director-General’s decision of 18 December 2018. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528). See, for example, Judgments 3735, consideration 4, and 2011, consideration 18. […] The Tribunal notes that, although the complainant submits in his complaint brief that his request for review dated 18 March 2019 concerned “a decision not to appoint [him] in the 2018 promotion”, the claim presented in such request for review was identical to the claim made in his first request for review submitted on 30 November 2018, namely to be appointed to a P-4 Inspector position. It is apparent that both communications from the OPCW dated 25 February and 28 March 2019 were merely confirmatory of the 18 December 2018 decision. The Tribunal finds that they did not constitute a new decision on the matter and, therefore, did not trigger a new time limit (see, for example, Judgment 4116, consideration 4) […] Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. As the complainant did not file an appeal against the 18 December 2018 decision pursuant to Rule 11.2.02(a)(i) of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, it follows that his complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1528, 2011, 3735
Keywords:
administrative decision; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its own case law [...] according to which the reasons for a non-renewal decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself (see, for example, Judgments 4368, consideration 15, 3914, consideration 15, and 1750, consideration 6), but may also be communicated to the staff member concerned in another way, such as at a meeting (compare, for example, with Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 3914, 4368
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; non-renewal of contract;
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 11
Extract:
[T]he lawfulness of an administrative decision must be assessed having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time it was adopted. It is firm case law that the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure (see Judgment 2364, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4860
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract upon expiry.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Judgment 4531 is relevant. In that case, a decision was made to reject a request by the complainant to extend her employment beyond normal retirement age. The initial decision to reject the request was not made by the executive head of the organisation who was the repository of the power to make the decision. However, the decision in a review, requested by the complainant, was to the same effect and was made by the executive head. As the Tribunal observed in consideration 11:
“Generally, the process of review creates an opportunity for an administration to reconsider an administrative decision earlier made and the correctness of that decision. It can, in this process, make a decision rectifying or remedying any deficiencies in that earlier decision. That is what happened in the present case. Thus, the failure of the Director-General to initially consider the extension request himself, was remedied by him doing so in the administrative review.”
Thus, in this matter, the decision of the Executive Director in the review remedied such flaws as may have existed in the initial decision, with the result that there was a decision not to extend by the person in authority to make that decision, namely the Executive Director. Accordingly, the plea that the decision not to renew the complainant’s appointment was not authorised is unfounded and should be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4531
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; flaw;
Judgment 4846
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he organisation maintains its plea that there was no reviewable administrative decision, which is foundational to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgment 4672, consideration 4). A decision that does not alter the legal situation of an official is not a decision that adversely affects her or him and it cannot, therefore, be challenged before the Tribunal (see Judgment 4675, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4672, 4675
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
There is no material difference between the circumstances arising in this case and those that were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 4295. In that case the complaint was dismissed because the complainant had no cause of action. A decision had been made by the Director General that no disciplinary measure would be imposed on the complainant. As the Tribunal observed, the decision was beneficial to the complainant, and thus he had no cause of action. To the extent that a finding of fact (contested by the complainant) had been made which led to the decision, that finding, as the Tribunal explained, “forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision”. In the present case, the decision not to commence disciplinary proceedings was likewise favourable to the complainant. To the extent findings of fact were made and adhered to in the impugned decision and reflected in the modified text of the letter of 22 February 2018, they were findings informing what was ultimately the favourable decision. Given the modification of the letter, there was no conclusory finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, the matter that troubled the WAB […] The complainant has no cause of action and her complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; impugned decision; misconduct; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Before the Tribunal, the South Centre repeats its contention that the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable, premised mainly on its submission that the notification of intention to appeal was filed out of time and was accordingly time-barred. On the other hand, the complainant states, in his complaint, that by his internal appeal he challenged the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip dated 18 December 2020 and that the Tribunal has accepted that a payslip could be considered as a challengeable decision (see, for example, consideration 2 of Judgment 3833). The complainant states that his internal appeal was filed against the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice within one month of receipt of his last salary and the emails of December 2020 explaining the organisation’s calculation. However, whether or not the complainant had challenged the non-renewal of his contract, as the defendant contends, the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip, or the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice are matters which were to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body, which should have been established pursuant to Staff Regulation 11.2.
Regarding appeals, Staff Regulation 11.2 relevantly states that an ad hoc Appellate Body shall be established by the Board according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex VII to hear and adjudicate on appeals from staff members. As to the procedure for an appeal from an administrative decision, Annex VII.B. requires a staff member wishing to appeal an administrative decision to notify the Board, through the Chairperson, of intent to appeal within one month of the date of receiving notification of the decision in writing. Within one month of receipt of the staff member’s notice of intent to appeal, the Chairperson of the Board is to refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appellate Body, consisting of three of its members, one of whom shall act as Chairperson. The ad hoc Appellate Body shall then receive the staff member’s written appeal, and a written reply thereto by the Chairperson of the Board. The Appellate Body may also hear further observations on, or rebuttals to, the initial written submissions, orally or in writing. It may also call for oral testimony from the parties or witnesses, including from members of the Secretariat, and for supporting documentation. Under Annex VII.C., a decision of the ad hoc Appellate Body may be brought for review to the Tribunal. The expression “appeal” in Annex VII.B is a reference to an appeal whether it is receivable or not. The obligation of the Chairperson is therefore to refer to the ad hoc Appellate Body a matter even if it is arguably not a receivable appeal. Moreover, there is no express provision in the Annex conferring power on the Chairperson to reject an appeal if it is irreceivable.
It is obvious from the foregoing provisions that the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Board erred by responding to the notification of intention to appeal in the way they did, given that they were not empowered to do so under the rules governing appeals. The notification of intention to appeal was to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body which should have been constituted for that purpose and the Chairperson of the Board was required to refer the notification of intention to appeal to that body. As this did not occur, the complainant was denied the benefit and possibility of having the decision he challenged effectively reviewed by the competent internal appeal body, which was his right (see, for example, Judgments 4620, consideration 5, and 3067, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3067, 3833, 4620
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 4807
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
“With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such, cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office of 12 July 2007. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007.”
[…] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118
Keywords:
administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant further asks the Tribunal to order that document CA/03/12 be withdrawn and to declare that the respective General Advisory Committee (GAC) consultation was flawed and invalid. The Tribunal notes that document CA/03/12 was not a decision, much less a final decision, but merely the President’s proposal for the amendment of Article 70a of the Service Regulations and Circular No. 301 (Rev. 1). Therefore, it is not challengeable before the Tribunal (see Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6). […] Therefore this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860
Keywords:
administrative decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; confidentiality; defamation; injunction;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
