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 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that since the claim is now moot it is irreceivable. The Tribunal observes that a plea of mootness is not an issue of receivability. As 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. Thus, even if a claim is moot it may still be receivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2822
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
In 2006 Eurocontrol approved a revision of the conditions of employment which redefined the functions and grades of Flight Data Operators. The complainant seeks, inter alia, renegotiated employment conditions and the award of temporary B4 grades to all Flight Data Operators.
"[The] Tribunal cannot entertain the complainant's claim that all Flight Data Operators should be granted B4 grades [...]. [The] complainant alleges no breach of his employment conditions or of the applicable Staff Rules or Regulations. And as pointed out in Judgment 1852, 'a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2632
103rd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1712, under 10, recalling a firm precedent, 'there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. 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 complainant's position.'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712
Keywords:
cause of action; complainant; condition; consequence; effect; injury; period;
Judgment 2630
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]s held in Judgment 1712, '[t]he necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury'. Moreover, the case law has it that 'receivability does not depend on proving actual and certain injury', all that a complainant need show is that the decision under challenge 'may impair the rights and safeguards that an international civil servant claims under staff regulations or contract of employment' (see Judgment 1330, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 1712
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; decision; effect; injury; official; receivability of the complaint; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
"A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2625
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2573
102nd Session, 2007
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Notification of non-renewal or non-extension of a contract is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms. However, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; contract; decision; effect; extension of contract; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; provision; refusal;
Judgment 2474
99th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
Although the Director-General’s decision to cancel the competition and to vacate the post to which the complainant was appointed must stand, it does not follow that the first complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. An international organisation has a duty to act in good faith towards its employees and to protect their dignity. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding the Director-General’s decision show scant regard for the dignity of the complainant.
Keywords:
cause of action; respect for dignity; senior official;
Judgment 2387
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant serves as President of the Eurocontrol section of the European Civil Service Federation. He asks the Tribunal to quash an instruction which, he submits, causes him injury and directly affects the interests he must defend as a trade union leader. "The Tribunal finds that the complainant does not show a direct cause of action in this case which would allow him to challenge the disputed instruction, since the latter was applicable only to the staff of CFMU, a body to which he does not belong. Insofar as he pleads in his capacity as trade union leader, he would be entitled to file a complaint with the Tribunal only on the basis of his personal employment relationship with the Agency - for instance by challenging measures which concern him personally on account of his duties - but not in order to defend the collective interests of trade union members. On this point the Tribunal refers to consistent precedent (see, for instance, Judgment 1542 delivered on 11 July 1996)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1542
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; collective rights; locus standi; staff representative;
Judgment 2324
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is not in doubt that the quashing or reversing of a decision may result in that decision being deprived of all legal consequences or effects. That is the case, for example, where a decision to withhold an automatic salary increment is reversed with effect from the date on which the increment would otherwise have been payable. In a case of that kind, the subsequent decision deprives the person concerned of a cause of action. And if there is no cause of action when a complaint is filed with this Tribunal, the complaint is, on that account, irreceivable. So much is clear from Judgments 1431 and 2065. But the mere fact that a final and substantive decision has been reversed or withdrawn does not deprive the previous decision of its character as a final and substantive decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1431, 2065
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; effect; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2279
96th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
As regards receivability of a complaint challenging an administrative circular, "A distinction needs to be drawn [...] between instructions whose purpose is to tell the Administration how to apply the law, which have no direct bearing on the legal status of staff members, and administrative decisions which impose obligations on staff themselves, particularly decisions affecting an indeterminate number of staff." (in this case, it was an administrative circular dealing with the introduction of an electronic system for recording the attendance of staff members)
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; complaint; consequence; effect; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 2216
95th Session, 2003
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Article VI 1.01 of ESO's International Staff Rules reads as follows: " 'Every member of the personnel shall have the right to appeal against any decision of the Director General concerning himself.' Thus, a person who is not a "member of the personnel" has no right to launch an internal appeal and his or her only recourse is directly to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VI 1.01 OF ESO'S INTERNATIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
cause of action; consequence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; general principle; internal appeal; official; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2210
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(c) and (d)
Extract:
The Agency considers that the complainant has no cause of action (to challenge the outcome of a competition) since she holds a post corresponding to her wishes and did not apply for a post which is, according to the organisation, very similar to the disputed post. The Tribunal states that: "all staff members are entitled to compete in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions. Staff members are free to choose whether or not to apply for a competition, provided that they do not abuse this right."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; competition; post; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2204
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organisation "expresses doubt as to the locus standi of most of the complainants, who are still far from the age of retirement [...]. In fact, all the complainants, regardless of their age, have an obvious interest in ascertaining as soon as possible the conditions on which the pension rights acquired by virtue of their employment prior to joining [the Organisation] may be transferred to their new pension scheme."
Keywords:
age limit; cause of action; condition; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; retirement; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In the Tribunal's view, the fact that [...] two staff members [...] filed no internal appeal does not prevent them from applying to intervene (see Judgment 518). The only issue to be resolved is whether the organisation's decisions on post classification apply to them. [...] This judgment should be extended to them only insofar as they have an interest, on account of their de jure and de facto position regarding post classification, in benefiting from the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 518
Keywords:
cause of action; enforcement; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"It is elementary that where a reason is given for taking a decision which is adverse to the interests of a staff member the organisation is held to that reason and cannot later seek to justify its action on other grounds."
Keywords:
cause of action; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2065
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."
Keywords:
application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
