|
|
 |
|
|
Confirmatory decision (27,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Confirmatory decision
Total judgments found: 47
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4823
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration.
Consideration 18
Extract:
In Judgment 3870, consideration 4, the Tribunal recalled that “for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) and not a purely confirmatory decision, the following conditions are to be met: the new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and it must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660, 2011, [consideration] 18, and 3735, [consideration] 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660, 2011, 3735, 3870
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
Judgment 4822
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In Judgment 3870, consideration 4, the Tribunal recalled that “for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) and not a purely confirmatory decision, the following conditions are to be met: the new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and it must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660, 2011, under 18, and 3735, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660, 2011, 3735, 3870
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
Judgment 4581
135th Session, 2023
International Cocoa Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount paid to him by way of a termination indemnity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The ICCO submits that as relations between the parties began and ended before the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not competent to hear this case. It is noteworthy that it was on 20 August 2019 that the Executive Director of the ICCO sent a request for recognition of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the Director-General of the International Labour Office. At its 337th Session, the ILO’s Governing Body approved that recognition with effect from 30 October 2019.
Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organization concerned has addressed a declaration recognizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Inasmuch as the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at the time when the complainant filed his complaint on 10 December 2019, the Tribunal is competent to hear it pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4560
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions (i) to recover the amounts paid to him for Long-Term Care insurance benefits in respect of his ex-wife and (ii) to demand the immediate repayment of the outstanding balance of a home loan he took out from the EPO in 2006.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It was in the [August] letter that the Director, HR Operations, informed the complainant of the decision that he should repay the outstanding balance on his home loan. The [December] letter, which the complainant contested by way of request for review […], merely confirmed that decision. It was not a new decision on the matter and, therefore, did not trigger a new time limit within which the complainant was required to submit a request for review, pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations (see Judgment 4116, considerations 4 and 5). As he did not submit his request for the review of the [August] decision that required him to repay the outstanding balance on his home loan within the time limit stipulated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress that were available to him. His complaint is therefore also irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, to the extent that he seeks to contest the decision to repay his home loan.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4116
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; late appeal; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he actual concept of a purely confirmatory decision, as referred to in the Tribunal’s case law, is not applicable unless a new decision confirms a prior final decision (see, for example, Judgments 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, 3002, consideration 12, and 4118, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1304, 2449, 3002, 4118
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; implied decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4116
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for payment of an education allowance for his children.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he case law of the Tribunal requires the exhaustion of the internal means of redress by means which accord with the applicable staff rules and time limits, citing Judgments 575, consideration 2, and 1888, consideration 4. In the present case, if the letter of 22 December 2008 constituted a final administrative decision in relation to the complainant’s request for the payment of the education allowance, then plainly no challenge by way of an internal appeal was maintained within the specified time limit. Also, if that is the correct characterization of the letter of 22 December 2008, the “decision” of 18 December 2009 was simply confirmatory of the original final administrative decision in relation to the complainant’s request and did not set off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal (see, for example, Judgment 3870, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 575, 1888, 3870
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
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:
With regard to the claim concerning the house ban, the Tribunal considers that it is irreceivable. In the 18 February 2016 decision, the President wrote: “[i]n view of the specific nature of your misconduct, you continue to remain at all times excluded from entering the EPO premises”. Considering the use of the phrase “you continue to remain”, the Tribunal finds that the 18 February 2016 letter merely confirms the continuance of a previous decision, which the President made at some earlier point in time, to impose a house ban on the complainant, and cannot be considered a new decision.
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
Judgment 3926
125th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was recruited on 15 May 2000 as a student air traffic controller, challenges the application of provisions adopted after his recruitment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; time bar;
Judgment 3870
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was promised promotion to grade D-2.
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) and not a purely confirmatory decision, the following conditions are to be met: the new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and it must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660, 2011, under 18, and 3735, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660, 2011, 3735
Keywords:
confirmatory decision;
Judgment 3296
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he has been harassed and that he was appointed only in 2006 to a post whose functions he had been fulfilling since 2001.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; new time limit;
Judgment 2887
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The letter of 19 December 2007 conveyed the Director- General's reasons and his final decision rejecting the complainant's internal appeal. The subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 did not alter that earlier decision and provided no new grounds for it. Accordingly, it did not give rise to new time limits (see Judgment 2011, under 18). As the complaint was not filed within ninety days of the notification of the final decision dated 19 December 2007, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal's Statute, it is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2823
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Although the complainant relies on his salary slips, that reliance is misplaced. It is correct, as pointed out in Judgment 1798, that «pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal». However, they cannot be challenged as new decisions if they merely confirm a decision that was taken at some earlier time and outside the time limits in which an appeal may be brought."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; individual decision; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1983
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not extended. "It is true that the complainant was aware of the organization's intentions, having been informed of them several times, in particular, in a talk with the Director of the [organization's] service in France on 6 November 1997 and by the fax messages of 11 and 20 November 1997. Nevertheless, she was right to wait for official notification of an administrative decision from the competent authorities of [the organization] before challenging the measure. Although the letter of 16 January 1998 signed by the Director of the [organization's] service in France appears to be merely a letter of confirmation, it is the only official administrative decision adversely affecting the complainant. Her letter of 6 February 1998 seeking a review of it was therefore in time."
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1528
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The precedents are clear: "A reply to a further request for reconsideration is not a new decision setting off a new time limit for appeal. The complaint fails because it is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; complaint; confirmatory decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1490
80th Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The complainant is trying to [...] challenge the decisions [...] that have become final. In the absence of any new fact he may not challenge mere confirmation of those decisions."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; receivability of the complaint;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
