Complaint (3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Complaint
Total judgments found: 302
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 1236
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The letter [...] from the head of administration was plainly CERN's answer to his internal appeal [...]. On the issue of notice it is therefore a final decision and meets the requirements for receivability in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; condition; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1227
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant is challenging a report submitted by the Joint Appeals Board. "The report [...] plainly does not constitute a final decision within the meaning of the UNIDO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; report;
Judgment 1223
74th Session, 1993
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"True, a staff member may not assert any right to promotion and the choice of the successful applicant is at the discretion of the administration, which alone may appraise the organisation's interests. Yet the exercise of discretion is subject to restrictions in law and the Tribunal will to that extent review the decision: see for example Judgment 1016 [...]. So the staff member has undeniably the right to file an internal appeal or a complaint with the Tribunal if he believes that the appointment to a vacancy he has applied for is improper."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1016
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; complaint; discretion; internal candidate; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; promotion; receivability of the complaint; refusal; right; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Since the three complaints before the Tribunal "are about the personal status of one official and the disputes arose out of the same facts, [the complainant's] application for joinder is allowed."
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; identical facts; joinder; procedure before the tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is plain on the evidence that the bureau of personnel told the complainant that the Director-General would be willing to waive the Appeals Board's jurisdiction [under UNESCO Staff Rule 111.2(b)] if she so wished, that she expressly agreed to the suggestion, and that she formally sought and was granted waiver by the Director-General." So the complainant appealed directly to the Tribunal "in full freedom".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 111.2(B)
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1220
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant is challenging a decision whereby another official, he alleges, was wrongfully granted or allowed to keep financial and other benefits. The complainant was no longer in the WHO's employ when the impugned decision was taken. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 732 [...], a complaint 'would succeed only if the complainant had suffered injury and established a sufficient causal link between the organization's act and the injury'; and again, in Judgment 764 [...] 'a decision by an international organisation is challengeable before the Tribunal only if it causes the complainant injury'. the complainant having suffered no injury and being therefore unable to show any cause of action, his application is irreceivable and must fail."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 764
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; cause; cause of action; complaint; injury; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant has brought two similar complaints challenging [the same] decision. [...] He explains that since the time limit for answering his internal appeal ran out [...] he inferred rejection and filed a complaint. He then left on holiday and not until he got back - by which time his first complaint had already been filed - did he receive the letter of rejection. So it was only by way of precaution that he filed the second complaint, within the time limit, against that express decision. In the circumstances the two complaints are receivable and may be joined."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1145
72nd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim to reinstatement is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because it has not formed part of any internal 'complaint' from him under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations and he has therefore failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1141
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint shall not be receivable unless the official has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable staff regulations. The purpose is twofold: the official should first avail himself of any opportunities he may have within the organisation for obtaining redress; then, if he presses his case, the Tribunal should have at its disposal full records on the administrative handling of the dispute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1140
72nd Session, 1992
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The time limit for filing a complaint must be strictly respected and may be waived neither by the parties nor by the Tribunal: a heavy workload affords no valid excuse for failing to meet it. Since the complainant failed to lodge a timely complaint with the Tribunal [...] his claim became time- barred."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1124
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"There is no rule against making two claims in the context of one and the same complaint if they are addressed to one and the same organisation, and the combining of the two disputes between the parties is no bar to receivability."
Keywords:
complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaints are challenging pay slips [reflecting the so-called 'Eurocontrol reduction'], of which the latest date back to September 1989, and they were filed on 27 August 1990, long after the time limits had expired." They are irreceivable.
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"By the date of filing [his first complaint], 15 March 1990, the complainant had lodged with the organisation one request for review under Article 13.1 of the Staff Regulations and another under Paragraph 15 of Circular 334 [on personal promotion]. Only afterwards, on 2 April, did he file an internal 'complaint' under Article 13.2. So he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires him to do." The first complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 13.1 AND 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS; ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."
Keywords:
complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1102
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to Article 7 and Appendix II of the Rules of court the complainant must make clear in the statement of his claims what his case is about and submit a brief setting out the facts and his arguments in support of those claims. The complainant has failed to explain in comprehensible terms what it is he wants or to file any legal plea in support".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 AND APPENDIX II OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII." (See also Judgment 1095.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1095
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the complaints have met the requirements of [article] VII [of the Tribunal's Statute] and the time limits therein the plea of irreceivability fails. The organisation's belated decisions expressly rejecting the appeals do not alter the substance of the dispute, which turns on the rejection to be inferred from expiry of the time limit in [Article]VII(3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; late decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1095
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 873 (in re Da) the CIPEC Staff Regulations do not provide for internal appeal. But that does not preclude the organisation's entertaining such an appeal ex gratia."The complainant addressed an appeal to the decision- making authority" before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the original decision and the Secretary-General's answer was to uphold that decision. So it is fair to take the ninety days as running from the date of confirmation and treat the complaint as filed in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 873
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; no provision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1063
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns his performance report. Because he failed to follow the internal appeals procedure his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1058
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The basis for the complaint being the staff report for 1984 and that report having been withdrawn, there is no need to rule on the claims filed by the complainant, who has obtained satisfaction. The Tribunal will nevertheless make an award of costs because at the time of filing the complaint was warranted."
Keywords:
case pending; cause of action; complaint; costs; exception; settlement out of court;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
