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 3709
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a retired UNESCO official, impugns the decision of the Director-General not to give her access to the submissions of another official who filed a complaint against UNESCO with the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; former official; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of UNESCO, does not allege any breach of her terms of appointment or of Staff Regulations applicable to her.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; former official;
Judgment 3698
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of the Audit Committee of the EPO Administrative Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In consequence, when “[t]he complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him”, his complaint must be held to be irreceivable (see Judgment 2952, under 3).
The Tribunal observes that the complainant does not allege any violation of the terms of his appointment or of staff regulations that are applicable to him. His case does not relate to his administrative status but rather to the organisation of the EPO, his employer, for which he is plainly not responsible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3671
122nd Session, 2016
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two service orders.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law establishes that insofar as an official alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which she or he was a member, she or he has a cause of action which gives her or him standing to bring a complaint (see, for example, Judgment 3546, under 6). In the instant case, the complainant is a member of the Staff Council and she submits that the latter was not consulted before Service Order No. 13/03 was published. In accordance with the case law, the complainant therefore has a cause of action before the Tribunal, even though this service order constitutes a regulatory measure which may ordinarily be challenged only indirectly in the context of an appeal lodged against an individual decision based on it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3546
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; staff representative;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
[T]he fact that the real reason for the contested decision was initially concealed from the complainant misled him as to whether he had an interest in challenging it. Indeed, although the complainant presumably had no reason to object when he was informed that the selection process had been cancelled because of “organizational changes”, which, by their very nature, are made at the Director General’s discretion, this was plainly not the case when it became apparent that this decision was really designed to avoid the foreseeable outcome of the competition in which he had been shortlisted. The complainant was therefore unduly deprived of the opportunity to appeal against this decision within the normal time limit, in breach of the principle of good faith.
Keywords:
cause of action; good faith; time limit;
Judgment 3645
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of WIPO, contests the rejection of her request to open an investigation into alleged misconduct on the part of the Director General.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the complaint does not disclose a cause of action, it does not meet the requirement of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3620
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to retroactively implement the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The argument advanced by the EPO on the question of receivability is comparatively straightforward. The point made is that decision CA/D 15/12 involved the establishment of a regulatory legal framework which required implementation by the President through individual decisions. The EPO refers to a line of judgments of the Tribunal to the effect that a complainant can impugn a decision of this character only if it directly affects her or him. A general decision cannot be impugned by a staff member unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him. The EPO refers to a number of authorities including a comparatively recent judgment, Judgment 3291, under 8. The complainant seeks to answer this argument in her rejoinder by saying that she was directly and adversely affected by the decision. However she does not point to any decision implementing CA/D 15/12 directly affecting her either after the decision was made on 26 October 2012 or during the period of its retroactive operation. That decision concerned the transitional measure applicable to individuals already in receipt of an invalidity pension at the time when the new scheme came into effect on 1 January 2008. The complainant was not in the class affected by the transitional measure. Consequently, the EPO’s argument should be accepted and the complaint should be dismissed as irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is obvious that the complainant does not have standing to submit such a claim. He does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. While in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, in so doing they must allege a breach of their own individual rights, which might include, for example, the right to be consulted (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 4, and 3449, under 4) or the right to compete for the post (see, for example, Judgment 2755, under 6). In the present case, the complainant does not clearly articulate any violation of his rights as a member of the selection board."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2755, 3449
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; selection board; staff representative;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]o the extent that the complainant appears to be seeking to defend the general interest of the staff in having that particular vacancy filled by a lawful procedure, not only does he not have standing to do so either individually or as a member of a group, he also has a conflict of interest. Indeed, given that he participated in the selection process, he could not have been – even theoretically – a candidate for that vacancy. His claim is therefore clearly irreceivable as he lacks locus standi to bring it."
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; selection procedure;
Judgment 3546
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the principle of extending the active service of a staff member beyond the age of 65 and the terms thereof.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the complainant has no cause of action entitling him to ask the Tribunal to order the ILO to reimburse the UNJSPF with the sums which it did not receive in respect of the extension of Ms D.’s appointment.
It must first be noted that, contrary to his submissions, his status as an official participating in an individual capacity in the UNJSPF does not give him a cause of action in this respect, since the fact that contributions to the Fund were not made in respect of another official’s appointment has no impact on his own situation. The complainant cannot therefore legitimately claim such reimbursement by the Organization. Nor indeed would he be entitled to request that the official herself be ordered to repay sums which she might have received in error (see Judgments 2281, under 4(a) and(b), and 3206, under 20). The complainant’s reference to Judgment 1330, concerning a decision which, on the contrary, affected the pension rights of the complainants themselves, is of no relevance here.
Neither can the complainant derive a cause of action, in this connection, from his status as a staff representative. Although he invokes the general interest in safeguarding the financial interests of the UNJSPF, or in ensuring that the Office’s governance rules are strictly observed, such an interest, however legitimate it might be, cannot in itself be regarded as one which the Tribunal is competent to protect.
In addition, the contention that the benefits enjoyed by Ms D. during the disputed period might have jeopardized respect for other officials’ pension rights by compromising the financial equilibrium of the UNJSPF must plainly fail, having regard to the amounts in question and the size of the Fund’s budget.
Since the Office’s special treatment of Ms D. does not have any direct and immediate impact on the terms of employment or the rights of other officials, the complainant has no standing to bring the above-mentioned claim in his capacity as a member of the Staff Union Committee (see, for cases raising similar issues, Judgments 3342, under 9 to 12, and 3343, under 2 to 5).
For the same reasons, the complainant has no standing to bring that claim in his capacity as a participants’ representative in the ILO Staff Pension Committee, on which he likewise relies."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 2281, 3206, 3342, 3343
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; unjspf;
Judgment 3544
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Insofar as he [...] alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has a cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2036, 3053, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; staff representative;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The ILO’s argument that, in the past, Staff Union representatives had never thought it necessary to challenge the practice in question and had apparently even implicitly acquiesced to it cannot negate the complainant’s right to rely on the cause of action thus recognised."
Keywords:
cause of action; staff representative;
Judgment 3534
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The two complainants, who were members of the General Advisory Committee, contest the nomination of the Chairman of the Committee for the year 2010.
Considerations 2 & 5
Extract:
The issue is a confined one. The individual appointed as Chairman was a principal director employed on contract. The complainants argue and the EPO disputes, that the applicable regulatory provisions precluded an employee on contract being appointed to this position.
[...]
However, Article 38(2) of the Service Regulations empowered the President to appoint the Chairman and the power was unconfined as to who might be appointed. While Article 2(2) of the Service Regulations is not a model of clear drafting, it is tolerably clear that under the Service Regulations both permanent employees and employees on contract referred to in Article 1 could have been either members of, amongst other bodies, the GAC or chairmen of those bodies. Article 1 made clear that the Service Regulations apply to both permanent employees and “principal directors of the Office employed on contract”. Thus the Service Regulations established that a principal director on contract could be a member of the GAC or appointed as Chairman of the GAC.
Keywords:
cause of action; member of an internal body;
Judgment 3515
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, in their capacity as staff representatives, impugn the decision to pay a collective reward to permanent or contract employees in active service during 2011.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaints. It does so on the basis that the complainants were challenging a decision of general application that had not been individually and prejudicially applied to them. It refers, in particular, to Judgment 1852, consideration 2, and Judgment 3291, consideration 8, and quotes passages from each. It also refers to Judgments 61, 92, 103 and 622.
In their rejoinder, the complainants refer to Judgment 1147, consideration 4, Judgment 1618, consideration 7, Judgment 2649, consideration 8, Judgment 2791, consideration 2, and Judgment 2919, consideration 5, in support of the proposition that a staff committee member can challenge a general decision which adversely affects staff or groups of staff. Also, and more specifically, they argue that even if a staff representative cannot challenge the substantive provisions of a general decision, the representative is always in a position to challenge a breach of procedure.
The complaints are irreceivable. The general decision in CA/D 17/12 is plainly a decision that would have required implementation. When that occurred staff aggrieved by the implementation could have pursued their grievances internally with the possibility, if the grievance was unresolved, of pursuing it before the Tribunal. However a staff representative cannot challenge a general decision governing all officials which will require individual implementing decisions. Judgment 3427 (at considerations 35 and 36) is a recent illustration of a case in which complaints were dismissed as irreceivable on this basis. To the extent that Judgment 2919 (which the complainants rely upon), indicates otherwise, it is at odds with the general jurisprudence of the Tribunal. There is a an oblique reference in the complainants’ pleas that there had not been proper consultation with the General Advisory Committee (GAC) and this is said to render the complaints receivable or at least the complaint of Mr T., who was a member of the GAC. However that issue was not raised in the internal application for review and cannot be raised in the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1618, 1852, 2649, 2791, 2919, 3291, 3427
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 3466
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which challenges a rule of general application, is clearly irreceivable and is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"An official of an organisation cannot lawfully challenge before the Tribunal a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to that official (see Judgments 1852, under 3, 2822, under 6, and 2953, under 2). In the present case the complainant’s challenge to Circular No. 323 is of that character. The policy in the Circular has not been applied to the complainant notwithstanding that an adverse decision was earlier made affecting the complainant which involved an approach later embodied in the Circular. Accordingly the complaint is clearly irreceivable and should be dismissed summarily under Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2822, 2953
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3462
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, clearly irreceivable, is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; locus standi; outsourcing; summary procedure;
Judgment 3461
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are irreceivable and they are summarily dismissed.
Considerations 5 and 6
Extract:
"As the two complainants contest the validity of the same decision [...] on identical grounds, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to join their complaints.
The Tribunal finds that the complaints must be dismissed as irreceivable as neither of the complainants has a cause of action. The contested decision [...] does not affect the complainants, either as individual employees or as individual members of the GAC as it has not yet been implemented. The decision caused, at the time it was challenged, no change to their personal membership in and contributions to the GAC. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the complainants cannot act as representatives of the GAC as a whole in impugning this decision, as the GAC itself was involved in the decision-making process and gave its advice based on the majority opinion of its members. According to the Tribunal’s case law established in Judgment 3291, under 7, “[the complainant] could not be considered to have a cause of action as he did not represent the GAC as a whole. That is because the GAC was consulted and submitted its opinion, which shows that the majority did not agree that the documents submitted were insufficient.” To allow an individual GAC member to file a complaint on behalf of the GAC as a whole, when she/he disagrees with a decision taken by the Administrative Council following consultation with the GAC, would be contrary to the “majority rule” that the GAC has adopted in relation to the opinions it provides and to the Tribunal’s case law on locus standi, according to which a decision may be impugned only by persons who are directly adversely affected by it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 3460
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion and it summarily dismissed the complaint.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2367, 2703
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; outsourcing; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in taking the decision to transfer the administration of all pension files to the ISRP. Such a decision falls within the scope of the regular administration of the Organisation and the Tribunal finds no flaw in the decision-making process, nor in the implementation of the decision. Furthermore the Tribunal finds that the decision cannot be considered unreasonable or outside the range of acceptability as it is uncontested that the ISRP had already been dealing with over a quarter of all EPO pension files as well as the pension files of several other international organizations.
The Tribunal also finds that the complainant’s requests are unjustified as all questions concerning the pension scheme remain under the responsibility of the Organisation, and the adopted outsourcing is merely a tool to increase the efficiency of the administration of the pension files."
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3454
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the complaints as irreceivable.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There is a difficulty for [the] complainants which stands in the way of their complaints being considered on the merits. They are challenging, directly, the decision of the Administrative Council and not its implementation as it might have applied to them (see, for example, Judgment 2822, under 6, and Judgment 3291, under 8). For that reason, the complaints are irreceivable and should be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2822, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3453
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the complaint as clearly irreceivable.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, who asserts that he is acting as chairperson of the “Committee monitoring the payment of War Rehabilitation Grants”, does not allege any breach of his terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations applicable to him. His complaint, which does not fall within the competence of the Tribunal, is therefore clearly irreceivable [...]."
Keywords:
cause of action; status of complainant;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3450
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the contested appointment because the complainant's right to a fair and open competition was violated.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Moreover, “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, any staff member who is eligible to occupy a post has cause of action in seeking the setting aside of the decision to give that post to another person, irrespective of his or her real chances of successful appointment to the post in question” (see Judgment 3206, under 11, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3206
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi;
Judgment 3449
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Any employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3). In order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the complainant does have cause for action, since he relies on a breach of the right, recognised in the Staff Regulations, of representatives of the Staff Union to be notified of a proposal to open a competition. [...]
Moreover, the Organization is wrong to submit that the complaint concerning the appointment to the grade P.3 post has become moot because that post has been abolished, since the appointment in question produced effects."
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant resists the conclusion that his appeal against the abolition decision was time-barred and refers in his rejoinder to Judgment 1712, consideration 10:
“The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the Appellant’s position.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712
Keywords:
cause of action;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
