Rejoinder (168, 792,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rejoinder
Total judgments found: 41
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2965
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t is well established by the Tribunal's case law that a complainant may not, in his or her rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in his or her initial complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, under 8, or 1768, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 2955
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The defendant asks the Tribunal to find that, especially in his rejoinder, the complainant engaged in 'completely gratuitous and misplaced [...] personal attacks'. It asks the Tribunal 'to censure such inappropriate language which detracts from the proper conduct of the proceedings'.
The complainant, who is not assisted by a lawyer, has certainly used, in his complaint and rejoinder, blunt, colourful language which is not always very courteous. However, this wording does not exceed the bounds of what is acceptable in the context of legal proceedings."
Keywords:
rejoinder; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2598
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.
In view of the [...] circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.
The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.
The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2364
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Even though it is only the 'decision' of 10 March 2002 which he wishes to have set aside, the complainant refers to facts which arose after that date and adds in his rejoinder that, since the final decision was dated 23 July 2002, 'all grievances raised until that date can validly be taken into account' as part of his complaint. [...] With regard to the claims based on facts subsequent to 10 March 2002 and presented as grounds for appeal, since internal remedies were not exhausted (Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal), they must be deemed irreceivable. [...] Furthermore, the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
claim; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; subsequent fact;
Judgment 2278
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant here is unrepresented. While the employment of a legally trained advisor is not a requirement and is no guarantee that a case will be well presented, the complainant's written pleadings are repetitive and contain largely unhelpful personal attacks on the member of the legal department who wrote the [Organisation]'s pleadings. They also contain unfounded and insulting comments about the EPO to which the latter properly objects. The Tribunal will limit the award of costs to 300 euros."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counsel; rejoinder; reply;
Judgment 2264
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(e)
Extract:
"In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 1433
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As to his further claims in his rejoinder, the Tribunal observes that [...] the complainant neither challenged [a given claim] in his internal appeal [...] nor set out the claims in the form introducing the present complaint. He has made the claims in internal appeals which are still pending, and the claims are therefore at present irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; claim; complaint; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 1431
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO described [the complainant's] complaint as "an abuse". But it does not ask the Tribunal to dismiss it as irreceivable for that reason. "The defendant is merely exercising the freedom of speech that any litigant must be allowed, short of resorting to offensive or insulting language." the complainant's claim to damages on that account fails.
Keywords:
criteria; freedom of speech; limits; new claim; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1289
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 1141
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The complainant failed to file a rejoinder in the time limit set by the Registry but applied for an extension of the time limit on the grounds of communication difficulties. "The Tribunal cannot allow that application, which reached it when it was already in session. There is no detriment to the complainant's rights on that account since the pleadings the Tribunal has before it afford an adequate account of the material facts and the parties' arguments."
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; delay; lack of injury; rejoinder; time limit;
Judgment 960
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although a complainant may put forward a new plea at any point in proceedings before the Tribunal, he may not in his rejoinder enlarge the scope of his claims as stated in his original complaint."
Keywords:
new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 909
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As a rule, claims put forward in a rejoinder are receivable only if they come within the ambit of the claims as stated in the complaint."
Keywords:
condition; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 871
63rd Session, 1987
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The submissions in the complaint and in the organization's reply being properly before it, the Tribunal will not forbear to rule for want of a rejoinder the complainant has failed to file even after two extensions of the time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 723
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; complainant; complaint; negligence; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 655
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The general rule is that a claim put forward in the rejoinder will be receivable only if it comes within the ambit of the claims in the complaint."
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 565
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A claim made in a rejoinder will be receivable only if it comes within the scope of a claim made in the complaint." A new claim which comes within the scope of a previous one may be treated as a valid alteration thereof. A new claim which states an older claim in different terms cannot stand as an independent claim and may not be considered. A new claim which repeats earlier claims or falls outside their scope is irreceivable.
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 437
45th Session, 1980
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is in his rejoinder that the complainant first makes a claim for compensation. Since that claim formed part neither of the internal appeal nor of the complaint, it is irreceivable.
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 404
43rd Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In her complaint the complainant states that she asked for a certificate of service; she speaks of this document in her rejoinder and makes a claim in regard to it. She also refers to it in her additional memorandum. However, the certificate is not mentioned in any of the claims for relief in her three (joined) complaints. "It is only on the matter of those claims that the Tribunal is required to pass judgment and it will therefore not give any decision on the text of the certificate asked for."
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Judgment 211
30th Session, 1973
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The complainant has failed to deliver a rejoinder within the time-limit allowed. The Tribunal will therefore consider the case on the dossier as it is."
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; delay; rejoinder; time limit;
Judgment 196
29th Session, 1972
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal cannot go beyond the claims submitted to it by the complainant within the time-limit of ninety days laid down by Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute. It follows that the claims put forward subsequently by the complainant, either in his rejoinder or in another memorandum, can be considered only insofar as they do not go beyond the claims submitted within the prescribed time-limit, since otherwise the purpose of the rule requiring the complainant to take action within ninety days on pain of irreceivability would be frustrated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
claim; condition; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
