|
|
 |
|
|
Step in the procedure (743,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Step in the procedure
Total judgments found: 51
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5174
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recusal of the chairperson of the Appeals Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; step in the procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
“Not every decision taken by an international organization constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s established case law has it that, ordinarily, the decision-making process involves a series of steps or findings that culminate in a final decision. Those intermediate steps or findings do not, in themselves, constitute a decision, much less a final one. While they may be contested as part of a challenge to the final decision, they cannot, on their own, form the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal (see Judgments 4914, consideration 10, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
More specifically, with regard to the opinions of internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that these are internal steps in the process leading to final decisions and cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4978, consideration 9, 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 5, 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6). The rationale underlying this case law, which characterizes advisory opinions of internal appeal bodies as mere internal steps preceding the adoption of a final decision, applies all the more to decisions rendered during the course of an internal appeal process concerning specific procedural requests from the parties, such as those for hearings, recusal of panel members, or disclosure of documents. Concerning more particularly requests for recusal, the Tribunal has underlined that “a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure” (see Judgments 4570, consideration 3, 4297, consideration 7, and 4131, consideration 4). This principle squarely applies in the present case, where the complainant submitted a request for the recusal of the chairperson of the panel in charge of the internal appeal.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4131, 4297, 4392, 4404, 4570, 4637, 4721, 4791, 4914, 4978
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
“The existence of a specific process […] for addressing partiality objections – comprising a first decision by the Appeals Committee and a second decision by an independent panel – does not elevate the independent panel’s decision to a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It remains a mere step in the internal appeal process, leading to the opinion of the internal appeal body and, subsequently, to the final decision of the decision-making authority. Any issues concerning the independent panel’s decision can and must be raised if and when the final decision is impugned.”
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
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 5135
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her request that the Director, Human Resources Management, recuse himself from any involvement in her appeals due to an alleged conflict of interest; the decision to maintain the composition of the Joint Administrative Review Board panel constituted to review her internal appeals; and the decision to reject her request for direct appeal to the Tribunal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Not every decision taken by an international organization constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1. The decision-making process typically involves a sequence of steps or findings culminating in a final decision. Intermediate steps or findings do not, in themselves, constitute final decisions. While they may be challenged as part of a challenge to the final decision, they cannot, on their own, form the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404, 4704
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
More specifically, regarding the opinions of internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that these are internal steps in the process leading to final decisions and cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4978, consideration 9, 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 5, 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6)The rationale underlying this case law, which characterizes advisory opinions of internal appeal bodies as mere internal steps, applies all the more to decisions rendered during the course of an internal appeal process concerning specific procedural requests from the parties, such as those for hearings, recusal of panel members, or disclosure of documents. Concerning, more particularly, requests for recusal, the Tribunal has underlined, in consideration 3 of Judgment 4570, rendered on the complainant’s second complaint, that “a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure” (see also Judgments 4297, consideration 7, and 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 4131, 4297, 4392, 4570, 4637, 4721, 4791, 4978
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; final decision; internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The existence of a specific process, under paragraphs 30 to 32 of IN/217 Rev.3, for addressing partiality objections does not elevate the decision of the Director, HRM, to a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, notwithstanding that such decision by the Director, HRM, cannot be “subject to further objection by the appellant”. It remains a mere step in the internal appeal process, leading to the opinion of the internal appeal body and, subsequently, to the final decision of the competent authority. Any issues regarding decisions on partiality objections raised by the complainant can and must be raised if and when the final decision is challenged.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; final decision; step in the procedure;
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;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[L]a requérante développe une abondante argumentation visant à dénoncer les préjudices qui résulteraient de vices entachant la procédure d’audit et d’évaluation de son poste, de la durée excessive de cette procédure et du caractère prétendument illégal du maintien du classement du poste à la classe G-4. Mais le Tribunal estime que, conformément à la jurisprudence […] relative au régime contentieux des actes préparatoires, dont le champ d’application s’étend aux conclusions indemnitaires fondées sur l’illégalité de tels actes, cette argumentation ne saurait être utilement présentée que dans le cadre de la contestation de la décision finale se prononçant sur le classement du poste en question. Celle-ci doit donc, en tout état de cause, être ici écartée dans son ensemble.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5033
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante demande l’annulation de la décision de réunir une commission d’invalidité pour statuer sur sa situation, ainsi que de celle de rejeter sa plainte pour harcèlement moral.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; step in the procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal considère que la décision de réunir une commission d’invalidité ne constitue pas une décision définitive au sens de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal, mais un acte préparatoire qui, conformément à la jurisprudence constante en la matière, n’est pas en tant que tel susceptible de recours devant le Tribunal et peut seulement être contesté dans le cadre d’une requête dirigée contre une décision définitive (voir, notamment, les jugements 4763, au considérant 2 (concernant un cas similaire de renvoi devant une commission médicale), 4704, au considérant 5 (décision de procéder à un examen médical), et 4636, au considérant 4 (relatif à une étape préparatoire d’une procédure médicale)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4636, 4704, 4763
Keywords:
step in the procedure;
Judgment 4978
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2012.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s request to declare the Appeals Committee’s opinion null and void is irreceivable, as the EPO submits. This is because, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721, 4791
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4952
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the IAEA’s decision not to award him moral damages for its alleged mishandling of his Appendix D claim, namely his claim to have his illnesses recognised as service-incurred.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4914
139th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close the investigation concluding that certain allegations against him were substantiated and to postpone the initiation of disciplinary proceedings until such time as he might be in a position to participate in such proceedings.
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that there is a fundamental difficulty in much of the substance of the grievance that the complainant seeks to pursue in the present complaint. He cannot point to an enforceable claim which can be vindicated by the process introduced before the Tribunal. The subject matter, namely the decision of the Global Fund to close its investigation on alleged misconduct, does not, without more, adversely affect the complainant.
In Judgment 4475, consideration 6, the Tribunal recalled that: “The Tribunal’s case law distinguishes between final decisions and other procedural steps leading to a final decision. Ordinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final one. They may not be attacked directly before the Tribunal, but they may be impugned as part of a challenge to the final decision (see, for example, Judgments 2366, consideration 16, 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3860, considerations 5 and 6, 3958, consideration 15, and 3961, consideration 4).”
In Judgment 3236, consideration 11, the Tribunal furthermore noted that “[a]buse of authority in relation to the initiation of an investigation may, if proven, taint a final decision taken based on the results of that investigation; however, it must be challenged in the context of that decision”, and it also relevantly stated that “[s]imilarly, an allegation of a breach of the right to due process in an adversarial proceeding must be brought in the context of the final decision arising from that proceeding”.
And in a factual setting that bears resemblance to the present situation, in Judgment 4814, consideration 7, the Tribunal underlined that “it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the [Internal Oversight Service (IOS)’s] divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against [the complainant], provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.” (See also Judgment 4861, consideration 14.)
The Tribunal considers that the decision of the Global Fund to close the investigation did not affect the complainant’s legal situation, either by changing his status or even by making any kind of statement in this regard, and this measure did not constitute, as a result, an “administrative decision” concerning the complainant (see Judgment 2364, consideration 4). The Executive Director was quite right, therefore, to follow in the impugned decision the recommendation of the Appeal Board and to consider the complainant’s internal appeal irreceivable.
From that standpoint, the Tribunal notes that the complainant’s assertion that the investigation could somehow be considered as a stand-alone process, independent and detached from the disciplinary process or measures that it may lead to, is wrong and represents a misguided approach to the factual reality of this matter. The investigation at issue was clearly part of a process that could culminate, if anything, in a disciplinary process and, ultimately, in a disciplinary measure. At the moment the investigation was closed as it was, that process was, and still is indeed, incomplete. In light of this, the investigation cannot be considered in isolation simply for the sake of argument. This is even more true in a context where, like here, the Global Fund expressly stated that these future steps in terms of disciplinary review or process would not take place until the complainant was in a position to participate, and thus implicitly but necessarily, was able to present his position, his contestation and his defence, in accordance with his due process rights that were here, in essence, acknowledged by the Global Fund.
While the opening of a disciplinary procedure could have exposed the complainant to a potential disciplinary measure, such procedure would, at the same time, have afforded him specific procedural safeguards. And, in the event that his legitimate interests would have been affected, he would not have been vulnerable to an arbitrary act by the Administration given the possibility of filing an appeal at the end of the disciplinary procedure.
In the present case, the decision to close the investigation had no adverse effect on the complainant in itself, as no decision was made regarding either a disciplinary procedure or a disciplinary measure. Without the possibility, as established by the record, of ever seeing a disciplinary process, let alone a disciplinary measure, as a result of this investigation, the complainant is unable to substantiate any adverse effect other than mere speculations as to what one could infer from the existence of this investigation report in his personnel file. And contrary to these speculations, the record is clear about the fact that the complainant did not have the opportunity to comment upon the report because of his illness, and that he strongly denied the allegations against him, such that this investigation report could certainly not be considered by anyone as a complete and final assessment in and by itself. This is precisely what the Global Fund indeed emphasized in its letter of 8 October 2020.
As a result, the Tribunal considers that, similarly to the internal appeal filed by the complainant, the current complaint is irreceivable, since the impugned decision to close the contested investigation is merely a step in a process outside the context of the disciplinary process or measure that it may lead to – which, in this case, will most likely never happen – and certainly not a challengeable administrative decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236, 4475, 4814
Keywords:
effect; final decision; investigation; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; due process; final decision; investigation; receivability of the complaint; right to be heard; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal disagrees with IOM’s assertion that the complaint is allegedly irreceivable (for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as the underlying appeal was not filed within the applicable deadline), insofar as it concerns the decisions, communicated to the complainant on 13 June 2019, to establish the PIP (including any alleged violation of the SES process) and to extend the complainant’s contract for a three-month period corresponding to the PIP’s duration. The Tribunal considers that a staff member may challenge the decision to subject her to a PIP in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the PIP process. In Judgment 3713, consideration 3, the Tribunal recalled that:
“[I]t is obvious that the setting of a performance objective is merely a step in the process of evaluating the performance of employees. It is firmly established by the Tribunal’s case law that a measure of this kind can only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the final decision taken at the end of the process in question (see for example Judgment 2366, consideration 16, or Judgment 3198, consideration 13).” (See also Judgment 3890, consideration 5.)
In the present case, the decision taken at the end of the PIP process was a decision not to renew the complainant’s fixed-term contract due to underperformance and this decision resulted in the complainant being separated from IOM. This being so, the Tribunal considers that the above cited case law from Judgments 3713, consideration 3, and 3890, consideration 5, is equally applicable in a case such as the present. And given that the complainant impugns her final contract extension and ultimate non-renewal, it is of no relevance whether the issue of her prior three-month extension is receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3198, 3713, 3890
Keywords:
final decision; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; step in the procedure; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4814
137th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the subject of an investigation into allegations of harassment and abuse of authority, alleges that she received no reply, within the sixty-day time limit, to the claim submitted to the Director-General regarding “multiple conflicts of interest” of the Internal Oversight Service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that procedural steps taken in the course of a process leading to a final decision cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal, though they may be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against that final decision (see Judgments 4704, consideration 5, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14). In the present case, the refusal to act on the request for the IOS’s divestiture is part of the process leading to a decision resulting from the investigation report (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3958, consideration 15). Accordingly, any alleged irregularities in the investigation could only be raised in the context of a complaint directed against the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, provided that she first exhausted the internal remedies available to her, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3958, 3961, 4404, 4704
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; step in the procedure; summary procedure;
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 4791
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4789
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4763
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illnesses be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]ny pleas concerning the question of whether [the complainant’s] medical condition was service-incurred relating to the 12 June decision are premature, since, in the end, the Director-General did not decide on this matter but decided to refer it to a medical board.
The 12 June 2020 decision, even though taken after an internal appeal process, refers the case to a medical board and is only a step in the process, not a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see, generally, Judgment 4636, considerations 4 and 5). Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4636
Keywords:
medical board; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4728
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Medical Committee’s decision to further extend his sick leave until 31 March 2015 and its failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The short answer to both complaints is that neither concerns an administrative decision of the type which can be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal. The decisions of the Medical Committee to extend the complainant’s sick leave were to facilitate the further investigation and consideration of the complainant’s medical condition, at least in the eyes of the majority, as part of the process of determining whether he was disabled and entitled to an invalidity benefit. They were both “steps in the process” directed towards the making of the final decision about the complainant’s entitlement (see, for example, Judgment 3893, consideration 8). Therefore, the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress, as is required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted; medical examination; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical examination; service-incurred; sick leave; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4704
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the determination made on his Clearance Certificate, upon his separation from service, that there was no medical reason to believe that he was incapacitated due to illness constituting an impairment to health likely to be permanent or of a long duration, as well as the decision to separate him from IAEA while on sick leave.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgments 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
[…]
The Tribunal finds that neither Dr L.’s certification nor the IAEA’s statement in the impugned decision for the purpose of explaining Dr L.’s certification constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The complainant’s claims concerning his incapacitation are therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3700, 3876, 3961, 4404
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; step in the procedure;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
