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 130
21st Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Failing any action to resist the decision within the prescribed time-limits, the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment became final and can no longer be challenged; consequently, all the complainant's links with the organization were severed from the date on which his contract expired.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; time limit;
Judgment 126
20th Session, 1968
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The organization contends that the present complaint has become irrelevant because of the termination of the complainant's employment after the filing of the complaint. "But the legality of the decision to terminate, which is also attacked in a complaint before the Administrative Tribunal, depends on the disposal of the present complaint. Moreover, if the present complaint were held to be well founded, the complainant could claim damages even if her complaint concerning termination were to be dismissed."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; judicial review; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; termination of employment;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 122
20th Session, 1968
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision not to renew his contract was notified to the complainant on 6 March and again on 15 June following his request for a review. On 25 June the complainant addressed a request to the organisation based on new arguments and directed to securing reconsideration of his case. Following this request the Director-General communicated to the complainant on 14 August a decision definitely confirming the previous decision, but in part on new grounds. The time limit for the filing of the complaint began to run only from the date of the notification of the decision of 14 August.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; confirmatory decision; contract; date; date of notification; decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 114
18th Session, 1967
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant failed to appeal against the impugned decision to the internal appeals body, contrary to statutory procedure. He has not therefore "exhausted the means at his disposition, under the applicable staff regulations. Accordingly his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 111
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is a rule generally recognised by the courts that a complainant is not entitled to refer to the courts in a single complaint two or more different decisions having no connection with each other. In such a case, the court can examine the complaint only in respect of the first decision specified therein."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 108
17th Session, 1967
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 97
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Designated passages in the complainant's statement "are totally unnecessary to support the complaint and are merely insulting towards the [organisation]; the Tribunal must, therefore, order their deletion."
Keywords:
complaint; elements; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 91
16th Session, 1966
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As regards the arguments based on equity which the complainant puts forward in favour of a review of his grievances, the Tribunal cannot take these arguments into account since the time limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal is mandatory; it is binding on the complainant and cannot be extended by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 81
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is attempting to deduce rights from clauses to which her husband could not have had recourse [...] the decisions relating to the application of the new pensions scheme were not contested by [the person concerned] within the period of 90 days prescribed by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and these decisions, which thus became final in regard to [the person concerned], had the effect of irrevocably altering, before the date of his death, both the terms of his contract of appointment and the provisions of the regulations applicable in his case" - the person concerned could not, immediately before his death, have invoked in his favour the regulations in question. Nor is the complainant entitled to do so now.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; receivability of the complaint; successor; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 80
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Decisions of a general nature "could be contested before the Tribunal only within the period of 90 days specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...]. The said decisions were not contested within the required time; they became final so far as the complainant is concerned and irrevocably modified, prior to the date on which her pension rights were settled, both the terms of her contract of appointment and the regulations applicable in her case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; general decision; pension; pension entitlements; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 70
12th Session, 1964
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration II (2)
Extract:
"The Director-General's power to decide in any case submitted to him whether or not [the] conditions [for waiver of immunity] apply is, in view of its specific character which necessarily involves relations between the organisation and a third party, completely beyond the control of the Administrative Tribunal."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; discretion; judicial review; member state; organisation; privileges and immunities; receivability of the complaint; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 59
10th Session, 1962
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The complainant's letter [...] contained neither the grounds of his proposed claim nor any indication of the arguments upon which he proposed to support it, and cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as being a complaint fulfilling the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; elements; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations
Extract:
"It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to enlarge the period of 90 days which Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal lays down as the period within which a decision complained of can be appealed and the [complaint] must be dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; mandatory time limit; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 57
10th Session, 1962
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"Although under Article 19 of its Rules of court the Tribunal may prescribe provisional measures during the preliminary examination of a complaint before it, no such measures can be contemplated unless they are directed to ensuring a fully satisfactory preliminary examination of the case, and unless they are conducive to that end, and such as to enable the Tribunal to issue a judgment based on a full knowledge of the facts or serving an effective purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 19 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; provisional measures; purpose; submissions;
Judgment 55
9th Session, 1961
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the complaint was not filed within the time limit provided for under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it is not receivable. "It is to no purpose that the complainant alleges that she was unaware of the conditions under which she had access to the Tribunal, since she had been provided with a copy of the Staff Rules of the organization, articles [...] of which make provision both for access to the Tribunal and for the availability of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; duty to inform; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 41
8th Session, 1960
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is established by the documents in the dossier that [the complainant] submitted her requests concerning reinstatement or the grant of compensation neither to the Director-General nor to the [appeals body], so that when she applied to the Tribunal she had not exhausted all the means of resisting the decision that were open to her under the [Staff] Regulations; the [...] submissions are therefore not receivable."
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 40
8th Session, 1960
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal is bound by the time limit of 90 days laid down for the lodging of complaints in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. "Article 18 of the Rules of court authorises the Tribunal to extend only those time limits provided in the Rules and not those provided in the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 18 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; exception; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 36
7th Session, 1958
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"In the absence of a decision injurious to the complainant, his complaint is quite unfounded."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; lack of injury; no cause of action;
Judgment 31
7th Session, 1958
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The time limits for the submission of complaints provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal are mandatory, and [...] the Tribunal must ensure that they are respected."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 26
6th Session, 1957
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complaint is tardy and irreceivable. The complainant, recruited for one month, suffered an accident. "The [...] organization has offered, and maintained its offer in the course of the oral proceedings, to pay the complainant [a] sum [...] amounting to six weeks' salary in fulfillment of its obligations to the complainant. Notwithstanding the fact that the complaint is irreceivable [...], the Tribunal, [...] noting that such payment is offered to the complainant [by the organization], rejects the complaint."
Keywords:
acceptance; compensation; complaint; offer; organisation; professional accident; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred; time bar; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
