General decision (33,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: General decision
Total judgments found: 145
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 825
62nd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 18.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
binding character; condition; enforcement; executive head; general decision; icsc decision; judicial review;
Judgment 818
62nd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant may "impugn the decision because it was based on a new method of reckoning. The change is of such a kind as to warrant challenging a method that has the effect of revising the system of steps within grade."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; general decision; professional experience; provision; receivability of the complaint; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 809
61st Session, 1987
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The organization submits that it followed a practice introduced by the master standard for job classification which the International Civil Service Commission has approved and which applies throughout the United Nations system. But the master standard does not apply directly to the staff of the international organisations: it consists of mere guidelines which the organisations are free to introduce into their own regulations."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; enforcement; general decision; icsc decision; post classification; practice; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 751
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The plea that no reasons were given for the impugned decision is also unsound. There can be no obligation whatever on the EPO to state its reasons for introducing scales approved by the Council. Such a decision finds its justification quite simply in the administration's position of subordination to the Council."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; decision; duty to substantiate decision; enforcement; executive body; general decision; provision; salary; scale;
Judgment 740
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Council's 'guidelines', inasmuch as they set objective and binding criteria and do not offer mere guidance, are binding on the President insofar as they do not allow him discretionary authority."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; decision; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; general decision;
Judgment 739
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Council's 'guidelines', inasmuch as they set objective and binding criteria and do not offer mere guidance, are binding on the President insofar as they do not allow him discretionary authority."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; decision; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; general decision;
Judgment 726
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants are impugning the decision by the Administrative Council of the EPO to impose a temporary levy of 1.5 per cent on staff members' salaries. The Tribunal holds that the Council's decision falls within the scope of its powers. Inasmuch as the levy is temporary and very small and there is a guarantee of nominal basic salary, the Tribunal concludes that there was no breach of the complainants' acquired rights.
Keywords:
acquired right; competence; decision; decision-maker; deduction; executive body; general decision; judicial review; reduction of salary; salary; tax;
Judgment 669
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The general decision impugned* in this case puts no exact figure on the entitlement of the staff members concerned. That will be determined only when the administration comes to take individual decisions in pursuance of the general decision, viz. the Council's approval of the new text of [the] Article".
(*) amending a provision in the Service Regulations on benefits payable in the event of invalidity.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; invalidity; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 667
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [a complaint must also comply with] the rule in Article VII(1) of the Statute that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant "is asking the Tribunal to set aside the Council's decision, not in its entirety, but only insofar as it affects himself. [The argument fails.] Obviously to set the impugned decision aside insofar as it affects the complainant would in fact have much the same consequences as to set it aside erga omnes.
Keywords:
application for quashing; consequence; enforcement; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 663
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
By virtue of Article VII[1], "the Tribunal will declare irreceivable a complaint impugning a general decision against which there can be no direct internal appeal, but which must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which such appeal does lie. There are two reasons for so construing Article VII. The first is that the Tribunal is relieved of ruling on the validity of a general decision to which it may be unable to foresee exactly how effect will be given. The second is that the Tribunal will not be acting on an application from a single complainant to set aside a general decision which other staff may not object to."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The impugned decision is a general one. "Before coming before the Tribunal the complainant must wait until the administration has taken individual decisions concerning him and he has exhausted the internal means of redress. To declare his complaints irreceivable causes him no prejudice since he may appeal against future individual decisions, first inside the organisation, and then, if necessary to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The mere fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII[2] of the Statute of the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 657
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of the relevant guidelines "is such that they cannot be treated as a mere statement of policy: they set objective criteria for dealing with individual cases."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; appointment; binding character; criteria; general decision; grade; promotion; step;
Judgment 626
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] but a complaint against a general decision will not perforce on that account be receivable. There is also the rule in Article VII(1) of the Statute that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 624, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 625
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 624, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 626, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 626
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 624
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The decision impugned puts no exact figure on the entitlements of each staff member concerned. That may be done only when individual decisions are taken, ordinarily by the President [...] on the strength of the general decision. [Under the circumstances], the complainants may not now challenge the validity of the general decision. Before filing a complaint each must await a new individual decision."
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 626, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 622
53rd Session, 1984
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is presented in the form of a challenge to the Director-General's decision not to withdraw a circular. In point of fact it is challenging the circular itself, a general and abstract rule. The claim on this point is irreceivable. The Tribunal will rule on the validity of a general and abstract rule only by way of exception, while hearing a complaint which challenges an actual decision.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; general decision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal hears complaints challenging decisions which are individual acts, not complaints directed against abstract rules of general purport. That its competence is so restricted is evident in particular from Article VIII of its Statute". The Tribunal will rule on the validity of a general and abstract rule "only by way of exception, viz. when hearing a complaint which challenges an actual decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; exception; general decision; iloat statute; provision;
Judgment 598
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Where the guidelines properly modify the requirements of the Service Regulations they confer on the President an authority of his own which he exercises in the general interest and as befits the particular circumstances. [...] The wording of the guidelines is such that they cannot be treated as nothing more than standards or goals [...] They set objective and binding criteria for deciding on individual staff cases, and, while not ignoring the President's discretionary authority, the Tribunal will review the application of the rules the Council has laid down."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; binding character; competence of tribunal; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; general decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 597
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 598, consideration 1.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 598
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; binding character; competence of tribunal; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; general decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 574
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organisation pleads that the complaint fails by the doctrine of res judicata, in view of the fact that the complainant was an intervener in Judgment No. 365. The plea was dismissed on the grounds that the substance of the two claims was not the same: the first claim challenged a measure which had the force of a rule whereas the second concerned a decision of an individual nature. The case is referred back to the President for a new decision. The Tribunal stressed that the organisation should not have based its reply solely on res judicata, refraining from arguing the merits without having been granted permission to do so by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; general decision; individual decision; intervention; reply confined to receivability; res judicata; same purpose;
Judgment 369
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute, "the Tribunal's competence is limited to review of individual cases but covers all such cases in question."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal's Statute limits its competence to review of individual cases. "Hence the Tribunal may not hear an application for the repeal or amendment of a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules. If it heard such a complaint it would be passing judgment on matters which fall outside the context of an individual case and would therefore be exceeding the competence conferred on it by its Statute."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 323
39th Session, 1977
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
It is not the case that "a decision of the Council which, when executed, will inevitably have an effect upon an official's rights, ipso facto alters those rights from the moment it is made and before it is executed. [I]t is the Director-General, not the Council, who vis-a-vis the official fixes his salary; this is so, whether or not in fixing the salary the Director-General is required to conform with decisions of the Council."
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; enforcement; executive head; general decision; legislative body; salary;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
