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 4119
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4016
Keywords:
allowance; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4104
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deny her request for the issuance of a fixed-term project-based contract for a member of her team.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is partially irreceivable. With regard to the claims to set aside the [impugned] decisions, the Tribunal finds that those decisions do not adversely affect the complainant directly, nor do they fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. The Director’s rejection of the complainant’s request for the creation of a fixed-term project-based contract does not fall under the provisions of Article II of the Statute in that the present complaint does not address the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of her appointment, nor does it address a violation of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 4048, under 5). It is not enough that the complainant submits that she would have been in a more favourable work situation if the Director had approved her request. The interest alleged by the complainant is not a personal one; she essentially contests the violation of the general interest in the efficiency or proper conduct of the Administration, which is not subject to challenge under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4048
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; competence of tribunal; impugned decision; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4099
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] has no cause of action to challenge [the appointment of the incumbent] since, according to WHO’s undisputed submission, she did not apply for the post concerned.
Keywords:
cause of action;
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 8
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the impugned decision was in favour of the complainant, since it confirmed the Regional Director’s order to initiate two procedures as requested by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant had to await the outcome of those procedures and, if not satisfied, he had to appeal internally, in accordance with the Organization’s rules, against the decisions which concluded those procedures. In light of the above, he did not have a cause of action to challenge the impugned decision.
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 4087
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Considerations 4 & 6
Extract:
The Director General’s decision to dismiss the complainant’s appeal for lack of a cause of action was based on the fact that the complainant “did not meet the requirements of the post (in terms of the minimum number of years of extensive professional experience required)”.
The Tribunal finds this reason to be well founded. [...]
The Director General was therefore right to consider that the complainant did not meet the condition of minimum length of professional experience stipulated in the vacancy announcement. Therefore, even though he was admitted to the competition, through an error on the part of the Organization, the complainant was not, in fact, eligible for appointment to the post in question.
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
In accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law, an official has no cause of action to challenge the decision to appoint another official to a post if she or he is not eligible for appointment to that post (see, for example, Judgments 2832, consideration 8, and 3644, consideration 7). In view of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action, all other pleas that he raises against the impugned decision are of no avail. [...]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832, 3644
Keywords:
cause of action; loss of opportunity; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Judgment 4070
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the complainant’s admission that she did not meet the requirements for the subject post means that she has no cause of action to challenge the shortlisting of the selected candidate or his final selection to fill the contested post. The complaint is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; selection procedure;
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see, for example, Judgment 2856, under 5). As a result of the reinstatement of the complainant’s firearm authorisation, the impugned decision is no longer operative and, consequently, the complainant’s claim for the reversal of “the decision to temporarily remove [his] authority to carry a firearm or, in case this cannot be granted, reinstate [his] authorisation to carry a firearm” has been overtaken by the 22 February 2017 decision. The fact that the impugned decision is no longer in force, however, does not resolve the other live issues between the parties concerning the lawfulness of that decision and the consequences of that decision for which the complainant claims moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4052
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to subject him to disciplinary proceedings after his separation from the EPO and to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of a reduction by one third in the amount of his retirement pension.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that inasmuch as the impugned decision is a decision that is adverse to the complainant, he has a cause of action in the present case.
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 4018
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to rule that, should the various sums awarded to him by this judgment be subject to national taxation, he would be entitled to a refund of the tax paid from Eurocontrol. However, in the absence of a present cause of action in this respect, this claim must be dismissed as irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 3255, under 15, or 3424, under 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3255, 3424
Keywords:
cause of action; tax;
Judgment 4016
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Eurocontrol’s objections to receivability are unfounded. The complainant was directly and immediately adversely affected by the Director General’s decision that did not allow him to remain in service beyond the age of 55, as he had requested. The legal basis of the Director General’s impugned decision that adversely affected the complainant was paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE, which is a provision of general application. “According to th[e] case law, a complainant can impugn a decision only if it directly affects her/him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her/him, but she/he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated their cause of action.” (See Judgment 3291, under 8, and the case law cited therein.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 4007
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their redeployment following a restructuring.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In Judgment 3740, under 11, the Tribunal reiterated that “for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury”. It is evident that the redeployment of a staff member to a new post is liable to cause injury, and it follows that the complainants have a cause of action and the complaints are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3740
Keywords:
cause of action; redeployment;
Judgment 3941
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a Circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the cause of action in the present complaint is the same as in Judgment 3761, the Tribunal adopts and applies the reasoning and the findings and conclusions in that case in the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3931
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the decision to apply new salary scales in New Dehli as from 1 November 2014, which show a salary freeze for staff members already in service and a lower salary for new staff.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3642, 3760
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the complainant’s right to maintain these proceedings on behalf of the staff of the Global Fund in his capacity as a member of the Staff Council, there is some support for the proposition he can do so in earlier jurisprudence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 5). However that judgment does not reflect the Tribunal’s current case law (see, for example, Judgments 3515, consideration 3, and 3642, considerations 9 to 12 and 14). The adoption of the new arrangements in relation to salary structure and grading system was a general decision requiring implementation for each staff member. That general decision cannot be challenged by an individual staff member even if that individual is a member of the staff committee unless and until the general decision is implemented. That is not to say, it cannot be challenged when implemented by challenging a payslip that reflects its implementation. A recent example concerned a salary freeze where the complainants were able to challenge the general decision by challenging its implementation in a payslip. While the general decision to freeze salaries was not immediately reflected in the payslips (the complainants’ salaries remained the same and the freeze would only operate in the future), the Tribunal was able to conclude, in that case, that the general decision as implemented in the payslips was liable to cause injury because the decision to freeze salaries would necessarily negatively impact on the salaries in due course (see Judgment 3740, consideration 11). Nonetheless, as a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3168, 3515, 3642, 3740
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; locus standi; scale; staff representative;
Consideration 9
Extract:
While good management practice would suggest such consultation is desirable, the case law of the Tribunal which has insisted on consultation and set aside decisions where there has been none (see, for example, the discussion in Judgment 3883, considerations 20 to 21) has been rooted in a legal obligation imposed by a normative legal document (for example, a staff rule or regulation) that the organisation consult a specified body in a specified way (see, for example, Judgments 3736, consideration 7, and 3449, consideration 7). It will be the terms of the normative legal document that will provide the yardstick by reference to which the content of the obligation to consult will be measured and whether it has been satisfied. Insofar as the complainant alleges that there has been a failure to consult without pointing to any legal requirement for such consultation, he has no cause of action and, in this respect, the complaint is irreceivable. In this respect the complainant does not, as the Global Fund argues, point to any non-observance of the terms of his appointment or of the Staff Regulations, to use the language of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3449, 3736, 3883
Keywords:
advisory body; cause of action; patere legem; staff representative;
Judgment 3885
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to defer the promulgation of the revised post adjustment multiplier for staff of the UN system working in New York.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that, as the challenged decision pertained to the post adjustment multiplier in New York, it affected only the remuneration of officials in the Professional category and above based there. The complainant, at the relevant time, was based in Geneva and the decision did not affect him or his terms and conditions of employment as required by Article II, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3775
123rd Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the Office Procedure on “Rental and car advances for internationally-recruited officials”, on the grounds that the Staff Union was not consulted before it was issued.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant also initiated his grievance in his capacity as an official. However, Article 10.1 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) of the Recognition and Procedural Agreement, which relate to collective bargaining, do not confer any individual rights on staff members.
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3760
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to amend the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 3426, under 16, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3740
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the legality of changes to the FAO General Service category staff salary scale consequent to the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the revised salary scale was not applied to the complainants and did not adversely and directly affect them. However, as of 1 February 2013 up to the date the secondary salary scale reached the primary salary scale applicable to the complainants, the complainants would not be paid any interim salary adjustments, that is, their salaries were frozen. Although the February paysheets therefore did not reflect any change in their salaries, nor would any change be reflected in subsequent paysheets while the freeze was in effect, at that point in time it was evident that the salary freeze was liable to cause them financial injury. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. Accordingly, the complaints are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
Keywords:
cause of action; freeze of salary; payslip;
Judgment 3739
123rd Session, 2017
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges changes to the IFAD General Service Staff salary scale as a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the revised salary scale was not applied to the complainant and did not adversely and directly affect him. However, as of 1 February 2013 up to the date at which the secondary salary scale reached the level of the primary salary scale applicable to the complainant, the complainant would not be paid any interim salary adjustments, that is, his salary was frozen. Although the February payroll therefore did not reflect any change in his salary, nor would any change be reflected in subsequent payrolls while the freeze was in effect, at that point in time it was evident that the salary freeze was liable to cause him financial injury. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. Accordingly, the complaint is receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
Keywords:
cause of action; freeze of salary; payslip;
Judgment 3733
123rd Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision dismissing his two internal appeals on health-related claims.
Consideration 12
Extract:
A cause of action by an official based on the negligence of the organisation that employs her or him contains several elements (see, for example, Judgment 2804, consideration 25). The first is that the organisation has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. The second is that liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804
Keywords:
cause of action; negligence;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
