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 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The decisions of the Administrative Council [...] are regulatory texts or, in other words, general decisions governing all officials subject to them. As the Tribunal has consistently held, where such texts must ordinarily be followed by individual implementing decisions, [...] they are not open to challenge before the Tribunal. When these texts are adopted, they affect the protected personal interests of individual employees only in theory, and it is not until a subsequent individual decision is taken that they produce a practical legal effect. It is only the latter decision which may form the subject of a complaint before the Tribunal, and if the official concerned wishes to challenge the regulatory text which affords the basis for it in law, he must plead the unlawfulness of that decision in this complaint (see, for example, Judgments 1786, under 5, 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, 2822, under 6, 2953, under 2, and, for recent confirmation of this case law, the aforementioned Judgment 3291, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786, 1852, 2379, 2822, 2953, 3291
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal will not accept the complainants’ surprising argument that questions pertaining to the nature of the impugned decisions and their cause of action to request the setting aside thereof have no bearing on the receivability of their claims. According to the complainants, the only requirements regarding the receivability of complaints laid down by the Statute of the Tribunal are those mentioned in Article VII, namely that all internal means of redress must have been exhausted, that a final decision must have been taken and that the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal must have been respected. However, these rules concern only the procedural aspect of receivability. Receivability is also governed by Article II of the Statute, which, by defining the nature of disputes which the Tribunal has competence to hear ratione personae and ratione materiae, establishes further rules of receivability pertaining to the substantive aspect thereof. Thus a complaint will be receivable only if it is directed against a decision which is of a kind that may be challenged before the Tribunal and if it is filed by an official who shows a cause of action (see, among innumerable examples, Judgments 1756, under 5, 1786, under 5 and 6, 2379, under 5, or 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1786, 2379, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Consideration 32
Extract:
The complainants contend that they have a direct interest in decision CA/D 14/08 because it concerns the tax adjustments of employees recruited before 1 January 2009. It does not follow from the fact that a complainant has an interest either direct or otherwise in a decision that the decision has been applied to the complainant and that it has been applied in a manner prejudicial to the complainant.
Keywords:
cause of action; individual decision; lack of injury; tax;
Consideration 33
Extract:
The Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, where a “complainant has failed to demonstrate that the contested administrative actions have caused him any injury to his health, financially or otherwise, or that it is liable to cause him injury, the complainant does not have a cause of action”. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action;
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
As concerns the complaints brought by staff members in their respective staff representative capacities, the determinative issue centres on the nature of the contested decisions. In Judgment 1451, under 20, and later in Judgment 1618, under 5, the Tribunal drew a distinction between “a general decision setting out the arrangements governing pay or other conditions of service” that “take the form of individual implementing decisions” that each employee may later challenge and those decisions that do not give rise to implementing decisions and involve matters of common concern to all staff. In the latter case a challenge to the general decision by a staff representative may be receivable.
However, in the present case, it is clear that the contested decisions are decisions of general application subject to individual implementation. Until a decision of general application is implemented it cannot be said to have been applied in a prejudicial manner to a staff member and, consequently, as has been consistently held, cannot be attacked (see Judgment 2822, under 6, citing Judgment 1852). The fact of filing their complaints in their staff representative capacities does not overcome the fact of the nature of the contested decisions being ones of general application that at the material time had not been implemented. Accordingly, the complaints filed by the staff members in their representative capacities are irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618, 1852, 2822
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; locus standi; staff representative;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal considered the same receivability argument in Judgment 3426, under 16, and rejected it for the following reasons:
“The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, ‘[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action’. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint ‘must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations’ (Judgment 3136, under 11).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136, 3426
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; pension;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In the present case, the complainants have not shown that decision CA/D 25/07 has caused them or is liable to cause them any injury. The effect of the decision was budgetary only. The shift of the financial responsibility for the tax adjustment did not in any way adversely affect either of the complainants and will not have any adverse effect in the future.
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury;
Judgment 3337
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Considering that his harassment complaint has not been treated within a reasonable time, the complainant asks the Tribunal to sanction the Organisation for breach of its duty of care.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Claim (b) is irreceivable as it does not reasonably provide a cause of action. It would be exceptional for the Tribunal to instruct the President to ensure that Mr [...] will not be in a position to influence the complainant’s future career or to intervene in it, as the complainant requests. This is because this claim points to a future possibility rather than to a current grievance and present injury."
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that allowing a complaint against a general decision which does not directly and immediately affect the
complainant but which may have a direct negative effect on her/him in the future, would cause an unreasonable restriction of the right of defence, as staff members would then have to impugn immediately all general decisions which may have any connection with their future interests, on the basis that a general decision which is not challenged within the established time becomes immune from challenge. On this approach, once a general decision is considered immune, any complaint impugning the subsequent decision implementing it could not challenge the lawfulness of the underlying general decision. Considering this, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the approach illustrated by the recent case law (Judgments 2822 and 3146) is to be followed. According to that 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2822, 3146
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 3280
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
"Her cause of action in challenging the refusal to hold that promotion round cannot depend on the potential outcome of the round."
Keywords:
cause of action; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3241
115th Session, 2013
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reviews for 2008 and 2009.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and may be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted. This is buttressed by the statement of principle in Judgment 466, under 3, that such matters may be so challenged since every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on her or his performance, on which her or his career will depend. However, such a decision must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not so challenged, the decision becomes final and cannot be reopened (see Judgment 3059, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 466, 3059
Keywords:
cause of action; internal remedies exhausted; performance evaluation; performance report; time limit;
Judgment 3206
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; competition; flaw; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Consideration 20
Extract:
“[T]he complainant has no cause of action in seeking the repayment of [the] emoluments [paid to the colleague whose appointment he challenges] or calling into question her pension rights, as these measures would have no bearing on his own situation (see, for example, Judgment 2281, under 4(a) and (b)).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2281
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; lack of injury; locus standi; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3198
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the withdrawal from his personal file of the warnings concerning his productivity.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[A] complaint will be irreceivable if a complainant is not adversely affected by the impugned decision. Accordingly, in the context of staff assessment reports, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1674, under consideration 6(a): “a complaint is irreceivable when the decision at issue is not one that adversely affects the complainant. A decision is an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect on the staff member’s status: see Judgment 532 […]. The complainant suffers no injury from having to wait for a later decision which he may impugn, [...]. Similarly, an internal appeal, followed by a complaint, is not receivable when the organisation’s rules prescribe some formality to be completed first (see Judgment 468 […] concerning ‘something which is only one step in a complex procedure and of which only the final outcome is subject to appeal’).”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674
Keywords:
cause of action; decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A] cause of action no longer exists when the action that is complained of is withdrawn. Thus, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1394, under 4, in which the EPO was the defendant: “At the date of filing […] the decision [the complainant] is impugning did indisputably cause [him] injury and he was free to challenge it as he saw fit. Yet, though his claim to quashing did then serve some purpose it no longer does so since at his own instance the decision has been withdrawn. There is of course no question of quashing a decision that no longer exists and therefore has no effect in law. So the claim to the quashing of the decision must fail.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1394
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; personal file;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; status of complainant;
Judgment 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to find that, if these sums were to be subject to national taxation, she would be entitled to obtain a refund of the tax paid from the Organization. In the absence of any present cause of action, this claim must be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; national taxation of the tribunal's award;
Judgment 3143
113th Session, 2012
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
IFAD requests “ that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has no interest in the outcome of the proceedings. In this regard, IFAD refers to a statement by her shortly after filing her request for facilitation, that she would donate the money claimed to a cat shelter. In support of its application, IFAD refers to Judgment 764 in which the Tribunal held that a decision can only be challenged if it causes the complainant injury. The application is misconceived. If the complainant was entitled to the amount claimed, she suffered injury as a result of the decision rejecting her claim. Moreover, she is entitled to dispose of her property in any way she sees fit and retains a personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings, even if she intends, in the event of success, to give the money to a cat shelter.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 3138
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to rule that, if the sums awarded were to be subject to national taxation, she would be entitled to claim a refund of the tax paid from the ITU. In the absence of a present cause of action in this regard, this claim must be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; national taxation of the tribunal's award;
Judgment 3136
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 3033
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ny decision to terminate an employee's contract must be clear and precise and must comply with the applicable formal requirements. Moreover, like any decision unfavourable to an official, it cannot take effect before the date on which he or she is notified of it (see Judgment 1531, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1531
Keywords:
cause of action; date of notification; decision; effect; formal requirements; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It may well be that where an organisation conceals the existence of a cause of action, time will run only from such time as the cause of action is discovered."
Keywords:
cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; right of appeal; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and, as such, it may be contested by means of an internal complaint lodged within the time limits established by an organisation's rules and regulations. It may even be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted."
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report;
Judgment 2959
110th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Quashing of a direct appointment to the post of Chief of Cabinet.
"[T]he rights of employees of international organisations to impugn decisions regarding appointments do not depend on their chances of successful appointment (see Judgments 1549, under 9, and 1272, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272, 1549
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; decision; right; right of appeal; status of complainant;
Judgment 2952
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The 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. Nor does he claim that the Agency has infringed his rights as a member of the Staff Committee. [...] Further, he does not claim to have suffered any loss, damage or other injury, and does not point to any decision affecting him directly or which would have legal consequences for him individually. Thus, he has not established any cause of action [...] or raised any matter that may be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 2951
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; payslip; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
