Counterclaim (170,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Counterclaim
Total judgments found: 64
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 3568
121st Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following an administrative reform at Eurocontrol, the complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for reclassification.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Eurocontrol asked that two of the complainants [...] be ordered to bear “the full costs of the proceedings” if they did not withdraw their respective complaints.
The Tribunal may indeed award costs against the authors of frivolous, vexatious and repeated complaints which absorb its resources and those of the defendant organisations and hamper the Tribunal’s ability to deal expeditiously with other complaints. Any such award must, however, remain exceptional, since it is essential that international civil servants’ access to an independent and impartial judicial body is not impeded by the prospect of an adverse award of costs if their complaint were to prove unfounded (see Judgments 1962, under 4, and 3196, under 7).
It is true that, in the instant case, the complaints have been maintained despite the fact that there has been no change in the situation which led the Tribunal to dismiss the complainants’ claims in a judgment carrying res judicata authority. Although this case is on the borderline of what is acceptable in this respect, the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances, it is not justified to allow Eurocontrol’s counterclaims that the two complainants in question should be ordered to pay costs."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962, 3196
Keywords:
counterclaim;
Judgment 3566
121st Session, 2016
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.
Consideration 23
Extract:
"[A]s the application for execution filed by the complainant is not [...] vexatious, the CDE’s counterclaim seeking an award of costs will be dismissed."
Keywords:
counterclaim;
Judgment 3509
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to send his mail to an address, which is not the declared residence address in his last retirement questionnaire.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The EPO requests, as a counterclaim, that the complainant be ordered to pay part of the costs that it has incurred in these proceedings on the grounds that his complaint constitutes an abuse of procedure. But the very fact that the complainant has succeeded in part is sufficient to demonstrate that the complaint was not abusive and that this claim must therefore be rejected (see Judgments 3423, under 17, 3424, under 16, and 3425, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3424, 3425
Keywords:
counterclaim;
Judgment 3506
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of some of her requests for the defrayal of medical expenses.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Notwithstanding th[e] withdrawal of suit, the Fund insisted on pursuing the proceedings, as it wished to claim costs against the complainant on the grounds that the complaint was vexatious.
Without ruling out, as a matter of principle, the possibility of making such an order against a complainant (see, for example, Judgments 1884, 1962, 2211 and 3043), the Tribunal will avail itself of that possibility only in exceptional situations. Indeed, it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive and chilling effect of possible adverse awards of that kind. In the instant case, the aforementioned complaint cannot be regarded as manifestly vexatious, even though it was clearly irreceivable because internal remedies had not been exhausted. The Fund’s counterclaim will therefore be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884, 1962, 2211, 3043
Keywords:
counterclaim; withdrawal of suit;
Judgment 3422
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he foundation of the recommendation to pay compensation [...] was much broader than the narrow issue of whether the complainant would shortly gain other employment after leaving the Global Fund. Accordingly even if there was some mistake of fact upon which the Global Fund acted and the recovery of monies paid on the mistaken fact was actionable in the Tribunal by way of counterclaim (matters about which the Tribunal expresses no view), it is not demonstrated that the money actually paid was based on that specific mistake. Accordingly the counterclaim should be dismissed.
Keywords:
counterclaim;
Judgment 3293
116th Session, 2014
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amount of the reinstallation allowance which was granted to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; counterclaim; interpretation; refusal; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 3292
116th Session, 2014
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a reinstallation allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; counterclaim; interpretation; refusal; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 3263
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for execution of Judgment 3032 was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032
Keywords:
application for execution; competition cancelled; complaint dismissed; counterclaim; refusal;
Judgment 3196
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implicit rejection of her request for disclosure of a medical report.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the complaint must be dismissed, the Tribunal will not entertain the Organization’s counterclaim to sanction the complainant for abuse of process. Indeed, whilst her unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent manipulation and misrepresentation are inappropriate, they do not prove bad faith in and of themselves, and as such do not constitute an exceptional circumstance meriting the imposition of costs on the complainant (see Judgment 1962, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962
Keywords:
condition; costs; counterclaim; exception; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3135
113th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The CTA has asked that the complainant should be ordered to pay its costs on the basis that “the complaint is unfounded”. Without ruling out, as a matter of principle, the possibility of making such an order against a complainant (see, inter alia, Judgments 1884, 1962, 2211 and 3043), the Tribunal will avail itself of that possibility only in exceptional circumstances. Indeed, it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive or chilling effect of possible adverse awards of that kind. In the instant case, although the complaint must be dismissed, it should not be regarded as vexatious. The Centre’s counterclaims will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884, 1962, 2211, 3043
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3003
111th Session, 2011
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may at any time decide, when it renders a judgment, to defer the execution thereof if it considers such a measure justified (see Judgment 82 [...], under 5). It is therefore for the organisation concerned, if it seeks to have the execution of a judgment deferred in the event that it proves unfavourable to itself, to submit a subsidiary claim for that purpose. If the Tribunal did not order such a deferral in its decision, it must be deemed to have implicitly required the decision to be executed immediately, in conformity with the general rule, and it is therefore scarcely conceivable that an organisation could be allowed to request a stay of execution of the judgment at a later stage."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82
Keywords:
claim; counterclaim; date; execution of judgment; implied decision; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2211
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Having made reference to what it declared in Judgment 1884, under 8 and 9, the Tribunal states: "The Tribunal will not, of course, impose costs penalties in every case in which a persistent litigant [...] loses, for some disputes will no doubt be at least arguable. But where, as in the present case, a complainant has actually had success before the Tribunal [...] and nonetheless refuses to accept the limitations which such success imposes, that complainant may expect to have cost consequences. Because this is the first time the Tribunal has had to act against the present complainant, the costs awarded to the organisation will be relatively nominal, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. The Tribunal will order the complainant to pay the [organisation] the sum of 100 euros in costs. The [organisation] may recover the award by withholding it from any amounts due to the complainant now or in the future."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884
Keywords:
case law; complaint; costs; counterclaim; res judicata; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1962
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that it has the inherent power to impose costs on a complainant. But it specifies that it will only exercise this power in exceptional circumstances. "In the present case, it is clear that a full withdrawal of suit would have been desirable once Judgment 1864 had upheld the rules [at issue]. However, neither the fact that the complainant filed his complaint later than his colleagues, nor his failure to reply to the invitation made by the legal services to withdraw suit in the week following [...] can be considered as constituting abuse. The Tribunal finds that in the circumstances, this is not one of the exceptional cases in which it could penalise the filing or maintenance of a complaint as being abusive. It therefore dismisses the EPO's counterclaims."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1864
Keywords:
condition; costs; counterclaim; exception; vexatious complaint; withdrawal of suit;
Judgment 1932
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal would emphasise that it will not tolerate the waste of time and money caused by the pursuit of abusive and unnecessary procedures before it and will take towards those responsible any appropriate action, including awards of costs, if requested to do so."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1884
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"The Tribunal has never heretofore imposed a costs penalty upon a complainant. However, it asserts unequivocally that it possesses the inherent power to do so as part of the necessary power to control its own process. Clearly, such power must be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most exceptional situations since it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive and chilling effect of possible adverse awards of costs. [T]he Tribunal [...] declares that in future it will award costs against complainants in appropriate cases if they are sought."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1601
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Since the reversal of the disputed measures came only after the filing of the complaints and the complainants were therefore put to needless expense, their claim to costs succeeds. Eurocontrol's counterclaim to an award of costs against the complainants is dismissed."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counterclaim; date; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 1504
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is not appropriate for [the complainant] to make a counterclaim to damages [for the moral injury allegedly caused to her] in the context of her submissions on an application by the organization for review [...] The claim arises out of a separate cause of action and is one that she should pursue separately."
Keywords:
application for review; claim; counterclaim; moral injury; new claim;
Judgment 1443
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The organisation asks the Tribunal to declare his complaint to be an obvious abuse of the right to appeal, though it does not make any formal counterclaim. The EPO is mistaken. All that the complainant did was exercise his right to appeal; [the rule under challenge was] so vague as to prompt many internal appeals, and, however they fared, they were quite understandable."
Keywords:
counterclaim; criteria; right of appeal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not entertain the organisation's counterclaim to an award of costs against the complainant for abuse of process."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1113
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Even though [the] complaint is dismissed, "the Tribunal will not entertain CERN's counter-claim to an award of costs against [the complainant]."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
