Final decision (657, 27, 28, 30, 545,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Final decision
Total judgments found: 86
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4046
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for an invalidity allowance.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction concerns, relevantly, the non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations. In the present case, the complainant would have been entitled to the payment of an invalidity allowance in the event that the Medical Committee determined he suffered from invalidity. The legal right or benefit arising under the Service Regulations was the payment of that allowance. In circumstances where payment of the allowance should have been made but was not, there has been a non-observance of the Service Regulations challengeable before the Tribunal. Plainly enough, as part of that challenge, the anterior determination of the Medical Committee can be challenged because it is foundational to the decision of the President to refuse to pay the allowance. But that does not render the determination of the Medical Committee a final decision for the purposes of the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, in principle, it would be open to the President to reject the opinion of the Medical Committee if she or he discerned some reviewable error on the part of the Medical Committee. The Medical Committee’s determination is a decision that constitutes a step towards the making of the final administrative decision amenable to challenge in the Tribunal (see Judgment 3433, consideration 9).
In some circumstances, the Tribunal has treated a challenge to what has been identified in the complaint as a decision but, in fact, was an anterior step to the challengeable final administrative decision, as a challenge to the final administrative decision itself. An example is found in Judgment 2715. In that case the Tribunal sought to identify what was intended by the complainant and treated the complaint as a manifestation of an intention to challenge the final administrative decision. This course is not open to the Tribunal in the present case. That is because the EPO in the reply explicitly and clearly raises the issue of the receivability of a complaint challenging a “decision” of the Medical Committee. Notwithstanding, the complainant explicitly and clearly adheres in the rejoinder to the position that this was what was being challenged, namely the “decision” of the Medical Committee. In these circumstances, there is no proper basis for imputing to the complainant an intention to challenge the decision of the President of 11 June 2012.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2715, 3433
Keywords:
express decision; final decision; impugned decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3997
126th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[W]hat ordinarily engages the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is a challenge to a final decision with operative legal effect and not a challenge to the reasons underpinning that decision. Obviously if there is a final decision with an operative legal effect then a challenge to that decision can also impugn the reasoning leading to it.
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Considerations 10 and 16
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. [...]"
[In the present case], the President has failed to adequately motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant acted in bad faith, and failed to adequately motivate his ultimate conclusion on the disciplinary sanction he imposed and the reasons for it with specific reference to all mitigating circumstances. His decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the EPO to enable the President to make a new decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3968
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (see Judgment 3862, under 20) (see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the President justified his deviation from the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed: “the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow the recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that procedures may include many steps which lead to a final, impugnable decision, but those steps cannot be challenged separately. To allow otherwise would open procedures to a senseless and paralysing number of individual appeals that would serve no useful purpose (see Judgments 3876, under 5, 3700, under 14, 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3959
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to instruct the President of the Office to ensure the immediate return to him of his USB memory stick seized by the EPO Investigative Unit.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ‘[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.’” (See Judgment 3958, under 15.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; final decision;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.” (See Judgment 2366, under 16, confirmed in Judgments 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3.) Accordingly, the complainant’s claims related to the investigative procedure and the various acts adopted by the Investigative Unit and by its Chief are merely steps in the proceedings that cannot adversely affect the complainant until a final decision has been taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512
Keywords:
final decision; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to consistent case law, “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (see Judgment 3862, under 20; see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the Director General did not adequately motivate his decision. This flaw is enough to set aside the impugned final decision [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Consistent case law holds that “[t]he executive head of an international organization is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (Judgment 3862, under 20; see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case the Director General did not adequately motivate his decision. This flaw is enough to set aside the impugned decision [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly observed, and recently done so in Judgment 3862, consideration 20, that: “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; executive head; final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 3887
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO raises the question of the receivability of the present complaint, noting that the complainant insists on impugning the President’s decision of 6 September 2013 instead of the actual final decision of 21 November 2013. The Tribunal finds that as the complainant filed a request for review of the 6 September decision in accordance with Article 109 of the Service Regulations and has received the final decision of 21 November, which is included in the documentation provided in this case, it may treat the complaint as impugning the actual final decision of 21 November 2013.The complaint is therefore receivable.
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3876
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision, but they themselves cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal” (see Judgment 2366, under 16, confirmed in Judgments 3433, under 9, 3512, under 3, and 3700, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3700
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3860
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his request for suspension of the decision to abolish his post and terminate his contract pending the outcome of the internal appeal proceedings.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Whether a decision is a final decision is a question raised by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute that declares a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision. The case law of the Tribunal establishes two principles. The first is that for a decision to be final it cannot, at least in the ordinary course, be amenable to internal appeal or review or further internal appeal or review. [...]
The second principle is that a decision, to be a final decision for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 1, must of itself have legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 2201, consideration 4, and 3141, consideration 21). [...] The only qualification to the preceding conclusion arises from the Tribunal’s judgments which distinguish between a number of steps leading to a final decision and the final decision itself. Ordinarily the steps, while they may have the appearance of being a decision, are not treated as a final decision but can be challenged in a challenge to the final decision itself (see, for example, Judgment 3433, consideration 9). It might be thought that a refusal of a request for the suspension of action is a step leading to a decision arising from the internal appeal. However the Tribunal has recognised that this approach has to be applied with some care (see Judgment 2366, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2201, 2366, 3141, 3433
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 3835
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Director-General failed to provide any explanation as to why [the complainant] did not follow the Appeal Board’s recommendation in this regard, in breach of the requirements established by the case law (see Judgment 3208, under 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
Keywords:
final decision; motivation;
Judgment 3818
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3685.
Consideration 5
Extract:
This argument confuses the operation of Article VII [of the Statute]. A “final decision” for the purposes of Article VII is a decision following the process of internal appeal or, less usually, a decision that cannot be the subject of internal appeal having regard to the applicable staff rules or regulations. It is unnecessary to discuss whether there are other characteristics of a decision necessary to render it a “final decision”. What Article VII, paragraph 3, accommodates is a situation where a claim is made by an official and no action or decision on that claim occurs or is made within 60 days of the claim being made. In those circumstances the official can have recourse to the Tribunal as if there had been a “final decision”, because after the effluxion of the prescribed time, there can be taken to be an implied decision. If the organization takes a step in an internal appeal, that forestalls an implied rejection of the appeal that could be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3428, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3428
Keywords:
final decision;
Judgment 3713
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the reference value, used by the EPO to plan and measure productivity, introduced for patent examiners working in their technical field.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative instruction; complaint dismissed; final decision; joinder; summary procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
