Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 286
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 1272
75th Session, 1993
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"An international civil servant does derive a cause of action from an appointment by an organisation and it does not [...] depend on his being a serious contender for the post or caring deeply about it. All that is required is that he want the vacant post and, whatever his qualifications for it or his prospects of success may be, the Tribunal will acknowledge the cause of action by enforcing any rights the organisation may have infringed."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; competition; decision; judicial review;
Judgment 1270
75th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In accordance with Articles 106 to 113 [of the EPO Service Regulations] the filing of an appeal presupposes that the organisation has already taken a decision that adversely affects the staff member or that he has submitted to it a request for a decision he is entitled to under the Regulations. So the essence of the prescribed procedure is that it affords a means of having a decision reversed. The staff member may not secure a right of appeal by putting forward a claim to compensation that is unconnected with an express or implied decision challengeable under Article 106."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 106 TO 113 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
application for quashing; cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1266
75th Session, 1993
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1265, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
cause of action; complainant; icsc decision;
Judgment 1265
75th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
In Judgment 1000, under 12, the Tribunal held that "when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one". The complainants may therefore challenge "the lawfulness of any measure taken by the Commission that serves as the basis for the decisions affecting them, whatever method may have been adopted to import it into the organization's own rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; complainant; decision; decision-maker; general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; judicial review;
Judgment 1246
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
"The purpose of Article 6.7.3 of the Staff Regulations is that the lapse of time between first and second reports should be long enough - the period prescribed is nine months - to give the probationer a proper opportunity of showing his mettle before the second report has to be made. The period of less than three months that the complainant was allowed was far too short to allow of any substantial improvement. [...] The procedural flaw caused the complainant injury."
Keywords:
cause of action; date; delay; due process; flaw; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 1
Extract:
In her first complaint the complainant challenges what she regards as the implied rejection of her claim; in her second one she impugns express rejection. "The cause of action and the parties' pleas being the same, the two complaints are joined and there is no need to rule on the organisation's objection. Since the second complaint is receivable the Tribunal will go into the merits."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; express decision; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1229
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns the implied rejection which he infers from the organisation's silence on an internal complaint he logded against its refusal to take account of university degrees which he acquired while in the organisation's employ. Eurocontrol submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that a "complaint" may only be directed against an act adversely affecting an official. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant's letters to the Director General were mere statements of grievances that had no particular purpose" since he does not identify any duty towards him under the general conditions of employment that Eurocontrol may have failed to discharge there cannot have been any "act adversely affecting" him and for want of an appealable decision, even implied, his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; career; cause of action; decision; degree; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"True, a staff member may not assert any right to promotion and the choice of the successful applicant is at the discretion of the administration, which alone may appraise the organisation's interests. Yet the exercise of discretion is subject to restrictions in law and the Tribunal will to that extent review the decision: see for example Judgment 1016 [...]. So the staff member has undeniably the right to file an internal appeal or a complaint with the Tribunal if he believes that the appointment to a vacancy he has applied for is improper."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; complaint; discretion; internal candidate; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; promotion; receivability of the complaint; refusal; right; vacancy notice;
Considerations 33-34
Extract:
The complainant, a Eurocontrol official, challenges the rejection of his application to a post of head of division and the appointment of an external candidate to that post. "To refuse promotion to an official who has duly applied for a post in answer to a notice of vacancy does amount to a 'decision adversely affecting' him [...] it is immaterial whether the decision is express [...] or implied in the preference for another applicant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; express decision; implied decision; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under challenge is a passage from a memorandum which the complainant alleges changed the duties of her post. She seeks the quashing of that text. Such a claim is irreceivable. "A staff member may challenge a text only if it amounts to a decision and affects him adversely. [...] The fact of the matter is that no decision was taken and her claim to the striking out of the [text] cannot be entertained."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; cause of action; claim; condition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1220
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant is challenging a decision whereby another official, he alleges, was wrongfully granted or allowed to keep financial and other benefits. The complainant was no longer in the WHO's employ when the impugned decision was taken. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 732 [...], a complaint 'would succeed only if the complainant had suffered injury and established a sufficient causal link between the organization's act and the injury'; and again, in Judgment 764 [...] 'a decision by an international organisation is challengeable before the Tribunal only if it causes the complainant injury'. the complainant having suffered no injury and being therefore unable to show any cause of action, his application is irreceivable and must fail."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 764
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; cause; cause of action; complaint; injury; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 1203
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainants went on strike and the organisation sent them an "open letter" and individual letters drawing their attention to their obligations under the rules. Those are the letters they impugn. According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute what a complainant is required to impugn is a "decision". "As was held in Judgment 112, a plea to quash may be directed only against a decision, that is, 'an act deciding a question in a specific case'. And in Judgment 532 the Tribunal construed the term to mean 'any action by an officer of the organisation that has a legal effect'. In sum, a decision is any act by the defendant organisation that has an effect on an official's rights and obligations." In this case "the Tribunal finds nothing in either the individual letters or the open one that it may properly construe as a 'decision' within the above definition."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 112, 532
Keywords:
absence of final decision; application for quashing; case law; cause of action; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1125
71st Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant wants the Organisation to continue making contributions into a savings fund for the benefit of her heirs after the date of her retirement. "[H]er own lack of financial entitlement does not bar her from asking the Tribunal to enforce a provision of the material regulations."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; receivability of the complaint; successor;
Judgment 1104
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant having refused to undergo examination by a medical expert to determine whether he was fit for shift work, the organization ordered him to undergo examination or incur the risk of disciplinary sanction. The appeals body took the same view and the Director-General endorsed its recommendation. That is the decision under challenge. CERN submits that the complaint shows no cause of action because the impugned decision does not directly affect the complainant. Though merely preparatory decisions are not ordinarily actionable, the Tribunal treats this case as an exception: the complainant has been issued a warning which in itself causes him injury.
Keywords:
cause of action; injury; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1101
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants, who are employees of Eurocontrol, seek the quashing of an Office Notice insofar as it informs staff that expenses arising from trace-element therapy (oligo-elements), aromatherapy and phytotherapy are not to be refunded. The Agency pleas that the complaint is irreceivable. "It is worth pointing out that in Judgment 961 [...] of 27 June 1989 the Tribunal held that it was 'competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes' and would not make prior rulings of general purport. Again in Judgment 1081 [...] of 29 January 1991 it affirmed that no appeal would lie against a general decision provided that it was such as needed in all cases to be followed by a challengeable individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 961, 1081
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a general decision. They "cannot yet show any cause of action and their complaints must fail because they are irreceivable. [...] Since, however, before altering its stand the organisation directly encouraged them to file the present complaints, it is only reasonable that it should bear the costs".
Keywords:
cause of action; costs; exception; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1100
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant challenged the reckoning of her pension in the internal appeal. Having obtained satisfaction after she filed her complaint she withdrew her main claims but presses her claim to moral damages and costs. The Tribunal considers her complaint premature because it challenges a decision which was stated to be provisional, and the withdrawal of her main claim makes her claim to damages void. Nor is she entitled to costs.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case pending; cause of action; no cause of action; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1097
71st Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal contained a claim to a certificate of service in keeping with the Staff Rules. She got one before filing her complaint and therefore has no cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; certificate of service; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1058
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The basis for the complaint being the staff report for 1984 and that report having been withdrawn, there is no need to rule on the claims filed by the complainant, who has obtained satisfaction. The Tribunal will nevertheless make an award of costs because at the time of filing the complaint was warranted."
Keywords:
case pending; cause of action; complaint; costs; exception; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1056
70th Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant is not challenging any administrative decision. Nor has he submitted any text that may be treated as a claim that has by implication been rejected. His complaint is therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1043
69th Session, 1990
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant submitted an application for execution of Judgment 922 that set aside the decision to dismiss him. The UPU subsequently notified the Tribunal that it had reversed the decision and would offer the complainant compensation. The Tribunal took note of the Union's undertaking and awarded him 10,000 Swiss francs in damages for all the forms of injury he sustained and 1,000 francs towards costs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 922
Keywords:
application for execution; case pending; cause of action; costs; injury; material damages; moral injury; no cause of action; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1042
69th Session, 1990
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After the UPU notified the reversal of its decision to dismiss the complainant, he no longer had any cause of action. He is nevertheless entitled to an award of costs.
Keywords:
case pending; cause of action; costs; no cause of action; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1003
68th Session, 1990
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Before the complaint was filed the Organisation went back on its decision to dismiss him and replaced it by a reprimand. Since the decision "has been withdrawn and has had no effect on his career there is no cause of action and his complaint is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
