Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 92
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; final decision; receivability of application;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[The complainant's] claims of harassment are [...] irreceivable [...] pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute because there are no final decisions on them.
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
Though the complainant raised the issue of conflict of interest of the Head of the Legal Service and the Head of Administration and Personnel, neither the Appeals Board nor the Secretary General in his final decision addressed this fundamental issue.
The existence of the above-mentioned conflict of interest is enough of a vitiating procedural flaw to require the setting aside of the decisions [...].
Keywords:
conflict of interest; final decision; internal appeals body; procedural flaw;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Disciplinary Committee found no misconduct and recommended no sanction. In the decision of [...], the Secretary General failed to explain why the Disciplinary Committee’s analysis and conclusions on both the question of guilt and the question of sanction were wrong (see Judgment 3969, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4046
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for an invalidity allowance.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction concerns, relevantly, the non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations. In the present case, the complainant would have been entitled to the payment of an invalidity allowance in the event that the Medical Committee determined he suffered from invalidity. The legal right or benefit arising under the Service Regulations was the payment of that allowance. In circumstances where payment of the allowance should have been made but was not, there has been a non-observance of the Service Regulations challengeable before the Tribunal. Plainly enough, as part of that challenge, the anterior determination of the Medical Committee can be challenged because it is foundational to the decision of the President to refuse to pay the allowance. But that does not render the determination of the Medical Committee a final decision for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, in principle, it would be open to the President to reject the opinion of the Medical Committee if she or he discerned some reviewable error on the part of the Medical Committee. The Medical Committee’s determination is a decision that constitutes a step towards the making of the final administrative decision amenable to challenge in the Tribunal (see Judgment 3433, consideration 9).
In some circumstances, the Tribunal has treated a challenge to what has been identified in the complaint as a decision but, in fact, was an anterior step to the challengeable final administrative decision, as a challenge to the final administrative decision itself. An example is found in Judgment 2715. In that case the Tribunal sought to identify what was intended by the complainant and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. This course is not open to the Tribunal in the present case. That is because the EPO in the reply explicitly and clearly raises the issue of the receivability of a complaint challenging a “decision” of the Medical Committee. Notwithstanding, the complainant explicitly and clearly adheres in the rejoinder to the position that this was what was being challenged, namely the “decision” of the Medical Committee. In these circumstances, there is no proper basis for imputing to the complainant an intention to challenge the decision of the President of 11 June 2012.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 3433
Keywords:
express decision; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3997
126th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hat ordinarily engages the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is a challenge to a final decision with operative legal effect and not a challenge to the reasons underpinning that decision. Obviously if there is a final decision with an operative legal effect then a challenge to that decision can also impugn the reasoning leading to it.
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Considerations 10 and 16
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. [...]"
[In the present case], the President has failed to adequately motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant acted in bad faith, and failed to adequately motivate his ultimate conclusion on the disciplinary sanction he imposed and the reasons for it with specific reference to all mitigating circumstances. His decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the EPO to enable the President to make a new decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3968
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (see Judgment 3862, under 20) (see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the President justified his deviation from the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed: “the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow the recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that procedures may include many steps which lead to a final, impugnable decision, but those steps cannot be challenged separately. To allow otherwise would open procedures to a senseless and paralysing number of individual appeals that would serve no useful purpose (see Judgments 3876, under 5, 3700, under 14, 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3959
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to instruct the President of the Office to ensure the immediate return to him of his USB memory stick seized by the EPO Investigative Unit.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; final decision;
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ‘[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 part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.’” (See Judgment 3958, under 15.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[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 part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.” (See Judgment 2366, under 16, confirmed in Judgments 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3.) Accordingly, the complainant’s claims related to the investigative procedure and the various acts adopted by the Investigative Unit and by its Chief are merely steps in the proceedings that cannot adversely affect the complainant until a final decision has been taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512
Keywords:
final decision; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to consistent case law, “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (see Judgment 3862, under 20; see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Director General did not adequately motivate his decision. This flaw is enough to set aside the impugned final decision [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that “[t]he executive head of an international organization is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (Judgment 3862, under 20; see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case the Director General did not adequately motivate his decision. This flaw is enough to set aside the impugned decision [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
