Individual decision (38,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Individual decision
Total judgments found: 95
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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;
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;
Judgment 663
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 5
Extract:
None of the complainants "objected to the decision on his starting grade and step, let alone duly filed an internal appeal [...] The decisions appointing them to [the grade in question] are beyond challenge and any claim which entails review of their grade and step on appointment is time-barred and irreceivable."
Keywords:
individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
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 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 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13(A)
Extract:
"A staff member may properly allege unfair treatment where general rules are not applied in the same way to all the staff members to which they are applicable, but he may not do so by comparing circumstances created by particular measures, such as agreements for the reappointment of particular officials. Such agreements will differ because the circumstances of each case differ, and there is no inequality of treatment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; individual decision; official; provision; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules;
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 317
39th Session, 1977
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will never comment on the validity of the rules applied [...]. The validity of rules is not subject to review by the Tribunal, which is competent only to review decisions - in other words, individual and specific acts."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; individual decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 278
37th Session, 1976
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The complaints are seeking to have quashed decisions whereby the Administrative Council [...] refused to revise the application to them of the staff pension scheme [...]. Thus what are being impugned are individual decisions, even though they are based entirely on a decision of a general character affecting all staff members."
Keywords:
adjustment; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; decision; executive body; general decision; individual decision; pension; pension adjustment system; receivability of the complaint; refusal;
Judgment 103
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant seeks to have a general administrative instruction making various amendments to the Staff Regulations set aside, "without adducing any decision applying any one of these amendments to his particular case. Thus he does not allege non-compliance with any of the terms of his contract of employment, nor, in general, any violation of his official status." The Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; application for quashing; competence of tribunal; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 92
16th Session, 1966
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
When a complainant seeks to have a general provision abrogated, "the Administrative Tribunal must confine itself to considering the legality of the provision and, if it is found to be invalid, to rescinding the decision by which it was applied or the consequential decisions [...]. The Tribunal must consider whether [the material provision] is in contradiction with a general principle of law, and if so, whether the decision impugned should consequently be rescinded."
Keywords:
application for quashing; competence of tribunal; enforcement; general decision; general principle; individual decision; judicial review; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 61
10th Session, 1962
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The said letter, whatever its intent, constitutes an individual decision in respect of which non-observance of the terms of the complainant's appointment as laid down in his contract and in relevant regulations is alleged; hence the Tribunal is competent, under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to proceed to review it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
