New claim (19, 647,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New claim
Total judgments found: 101
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The foregoing events reflect a fundamental flaw in that aspect of the impugned decision. The chain of relevant decisions that were maintained or reconfirmed goes back to the initial decision of 3 August 2010 that the requests contained in the letter of 12 May 2010 were not receivable. With respect, that could not properly have been the decision on the referral of the “new claim” that was specifically circumscribed by the Director-General in order that the ABCC consider a discreet issue which had not been considered or determined before. It was therefore necessary for the Director-General to motivate the decision specifically as it related to the “new claim”, which had not previously been dismissed as irreceivable. His failure to do so is sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned decision insofar as it was concerned with the complainant’s third internal appeal."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; new claim;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law provides, in effect, that a complainant cannot ask the Tribunal to consider issues which were not a part of the case in the internal appeal proceedings. This is because if those issues were not before the internal appellate body for consideration they would be irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires. (See, for example, Judgment 2808, under 9.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2808
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; new claim;
Judgment 3421
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his application in a selection process.
Consideration 2(a) and (b)
Extract:
[A]s the claim to an award of costs relates only to the complainant’s representation in the proceedings before the Tribunal, it could not be entered during the internal appeal procedure (see Judgment 2457, under 4 in fine). It is therefore receivable, as is the request for disclosure of the competition file, which is not in the nature of a claim, but concerns discovery of evidence.
Some of the complainant’s submissions, which WIPO invites the Tribunal to disregard on the grounds that they were not put forward during the internal appeal procedure, are receivable, since they are merely new pleas which the complainant is perfectly entitled to enter in the proceedings before the Tribunal in support of his claims, provided that these claims fall within the scope of those which were made during the internal appeal procedure (see, in particular, Judgment 1519, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1519, 2457
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgment 2837, under 3, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3222
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to disclose some documents related to the procedure concerning his claim for compensation for a service-incurred illness.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"While the Tribunal’s case law recognises a need to apply Article VII(1) of its Statute with some flexibility (see, for example, Judgments 2360 and 2457), there are no decisions which support the view that a claim about a discrete subject can be introduced at a late stage in an internal appeal about an entirely different subject and the fact that it has been satisfies the requirement that internal appeals have been exhausted before a complaint about the different subject matter can be litigated in the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360, 2457
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
"[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3151
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s request for disclosure of the minutes of the hearing held concerning his three internal appeals, the Tribunal notes that it was raised for the first time in the rejoinder of the present proceedings. It is therefore irreceivable owing to a failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant’s claim before the Joint Grievance Panel included a claim for “[s]uch other relief that [it] deem[ed] necessary, equitable and just”, that formula could not convert his claim for compensation in the amount of one Swiss franc – a claim for symbolic damages – into a claim for actual and moral damages as now sought. Accordingly, that claim is irreceivable and must be dismissed (see Judgment 2837, under 3, and the cases there cited). [I]t is to be remembered that, by Article VIII of its Statute, the Tribunal's powers are to rescind impugned decisions, to order the performance of obligations and to award compensation. As pointed out in Judgment 2636, under 16, the Tribunal is not empowered to order apologies. Nor is it empowered to order a staff member, who is not even a party to the proceedings before it, to withdraw his or her previous statements.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 2837
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; new claim;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in his or her rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in his or her original complaint (see Judgments 960, under 8, 1768, under 5, or 2996, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
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 2891
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Following her reassignment, which in Judgment 2659 the Tribunal considered as a hidden disciplinary sanction, the complainant applied for her previous post. Her application was however not considered on the grounds that under Administrative Instruction No. 16 only applications from staff members who had serve in one position for a minimum of one year would be receivable. The complainant challenged the decision not to consider her application, arguing that it constituted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal found in her favour and awarded her the compensation she had claimed.
"While this case stems from the previous complaint, the two cases are separate and distinct, being based on different facts and different administrative decisions. Each unlawful decision must have its own remedy. Therefore, the Organization's assertion that the damages already paid to the complainant must be taken into account in the calculation of damages in the present case is incorrect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2659
Keywords:
complaint; damages; difference; new claim; new plea;
Judgment 2837
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A]rguments raised before internal appeals bodies can be developed in a complaint before the Tribunal, but the complaint cannot include new claims (see, in particular, Judgments 429, under 1, 452, under 1, and 1380, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 429, 452, 1380
Keywords:
new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2796
106th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
"None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720
Keywords:
claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2622
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The Organisation submits that some of these claims are irreceivable, arguing that they fall outside the scope of the internal appeal filed by the complainant. Basically, however, the claims merely expand on the initial appeal, the main aim of which was to challenge the method of calculation of the disputed adjustment on the grounds that it violated the applicable rules.
The complainant’s claims, though admissible, are unfounded.
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 2417
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416
Keywords:
claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;
Judgment 2416
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 11
Extract:
"The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
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 2306
96th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks the creation of an Office of the Ombudsman. "So far as concerns the claim [...], the complaint is clearly irreceivable. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that [the] claim was made for the first time in the complaint to the Tribunal and, accordingly, no decision could have been made on that issue prior to the filing of the complaint. More importantly, the claim does not concern the non-observance of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the [Organization], they being the only matters upon which this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; iloat; internal appeal; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2239
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Since the complaints fail, so must the applications to intervene, it being noted that certain claims they contain which differ from those submitted in the complaints are in any case irreceivable."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; difference; intervention; new claim; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
