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 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[The] complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are largely interdependent. The Tribunal therefore considers that they should be joined in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; identical claims; identical facts; joinder;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
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 2887
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The letter of 19 December 2007 conveyed the Director- General's reasons and his final decision rejecting the complainant's internal appeal. The subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 did not alter that earlier decision and provided no new grounds for it. Accordingly, it did not give rise to new time limits (see Judgment 2011, under 18). As the complaint was not filed within ninety days of the notification of the final decision dated 19 December 2007, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal's Statute, it is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following the adoption by UNESCO of new classification standards, the complainant sought reclassification of her post. The Job Evaluation Committee and a desk audit confirmed that her post was appropriately classified at grade G-6. The Director-General endorsed that grading. The complainant seized the Tribunal but her complaint was dismissed as irreceivable.
"The complainant's arguments as to the date of the final decision dismissing her internal appeal must be rejected. The letter of 17 October 2007 clearly indicated that the results of the desk audit would be communicated to the complainant together with the final decision. In that context, the letter of 19 December 2007 informing her of those results and of the Director-General's decision that no compensation would be granted and that her post would be maintained at grade G-6 could only be construed as a final decision with respect to her internal appeal. Although it would have been preferable if the letter of 19 December 2007 had expressly stated that it was a final decision and indicated that it could only be challenged by a complaint filed with the Tribunal, the subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 still allowed the complainant sufficient time within which to file a complaint."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is appropriate that all six complaints before the Tribunal be joined, notwithstanding that the complainant has objected to that course. The complaints are, to a large extent, interdependent."
Keywords:
complaint; joinder;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that since the claim is now moot it is irreceivable. The Tribunal observes that a plea of mootness is not an issue of receivability. As a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal. Thus, even if a claim is moot it may still be receivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
While the complainant has referred to these matters in her submissions, with the exception of the allegations concerning the interruption of her sick leave and the exit medical examination, she has not done so for the purpose of advancing a claim, but instead to provide a context for her other allegations.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; submissions;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2827
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The EPO contends that the complaints are irreceivable ratione materiae on the basis that the implied decision refusing to provide the complainants with the requested information is not a "decision relating to a specific individual" for the purposes of Article 106 of the Service Regulations. It was pointed out in Judgment 1542 that: "a complaint is receivable only if it is about an individual official's status as an employee of the organisation, not about the collective interests of trade unionists." It is well settled that a complaint may concern breach of the Service Regulations (see Judgment 1147) or other guarantees that the EPO is bound to provide to its staff (see Judgment 2649). Those guarantees extend to freedom of association and collective bargaining insofar as they are implicit in the Service Regulations. With respect to collective bargaining, it is sufficient to note that Article 34(1) mandates that the Staff Committee "shall represent the interests of the staff and maintain suitable contacts between the competent administrative authorities and the staff" and that Article 36(1) enables it to "mak[e] [...] suggestions relating to [...] the collective interests of the whole or part of the staff". However, the rights that are comprehended within the notions of "freedom of association" and "collective bargaining" that may also be the subject of an internal appeal and, subsequently, of a complaint to the Tribunal are individual rights inhering in individual staff members."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 34, 36 and 106 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1542, 2649
Keywords:
collective bargaining; collective rights; complaint; decision; freedom of association; individual decision; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The argument that the complaints are not receivable ratione personae is based solely on the fact that the complainants did not describe themselves as members of the Staff Committee, in which capacity they may institute proceedings to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147, 1897 and 2649), but as «elected staff representatives». The argument must be rejected. The complainants are members of the Staff Committee, a fact that was communicated to the EPO in June 2006, shortly after their election. Moreover, they referred in their request of 4 July 2007 to Article 34 of the Service Regulations which sets forth certain duties of the Committee. The EPO does not, and could not credibly claim that it has been prejudiced by the complainants' failure to state expressly that they are members of the Staff Committee. In these circumstances it is not in the interests of justice to hold the complaints irreceivable by reason of what the EPO, itself, implicitly acknowledges was a «clerical error»."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 34 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897, 2649
Keywords:
complaint; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2825
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Because the letter [...] must be construed as meaning that a final decision would only be taken on the complainant's internal appeal after receipt of the opinion of the Internal Appeals Committee, it did not convey a final decision. As Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute allows only for complaints with respect to final decisions, the complaint is irreceivable. The matter must proceed before the Internal Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"In an attempt to show that her complaint is receivable the complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal to the Board of Appeal or Grievance Panel would not have served any practical purpose [...].
The Tribunal will not accept this line of argument, since to do so would be tantamount to allowing a staff member, on his or her own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed.
Apart from the fact that this solution would conflict directly with the terms of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it would belie the actual point of making internal appeals obligatory, which is what justifies this provision. However, as the Tribunal has already emphasised, [...] the purpose of the requirement that internal means of redress be exhausted is not only to ensure that staff members do actually avail themselves of any opportunities they may have within an organisation for obtaining redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal, but also to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a staff member lodges a complaint, to have at its disposal a file supplemented by information from the records of the internal appeal procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. Relying on various Tribunal judgments where complainants were deemed to have exhausted internal means of redress when it transpired that the latter would be inconclusive, she contends that she was likewise in a situation where she was entitled to turn directly to the Tribunal.
"The complainant is mistaken in believing that she may be deemed in this case to have exhausted internal means of redress. The precedents to which she refers [...] refer to cases where, owing to the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings, or the organisation's wrongful attempts to impede the examination of such an appeal, the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted would have paralysed the complainant's exercise of his or her right to have access to the Tribunal. However, as a general rule, and according to the same line of precedent, this departure from the application of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal will be accepted only where complainants have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to have their internal appeal effectively examined, so that they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for a failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available within an organisation. But, this is not the case here where, on the contrary, the complainant quite simply refrained from filing such an appeal and therefore took it upon herself not to comply with this precondition for filing a complaint with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1829, 1968, 2039
Keywords:
complaint; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to challenge the Director-General's decision before the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that, bearing in mind the purely advisory nature of this body, the Director-General could have confirmed her initial decision, no matter what recommendation was made to her.
"The fact that the recommendations of the Board of Appeal are not binding on the decision-making authority does not mean that they have no weight in the internal appeals procedure, since the Director-General has a legal duty to give such recommendations due consideration and, according to the Tribunal's case law, can lawfully depart from them only for clear and cogent reasons."
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 12
Extract:
WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that her internal appeal could not be examined with due objectiveness and impartiality and she indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642 that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings.
"Although the complainant indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642, delivered on 11 July 2007, that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings, this judgment should not be construed as general criticism of the way such panels operate."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2780
106th Session, 2009
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"All issues of receivability raised may [...] remain undecided because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."
Keywords:
complaint; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2722
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
Keywords:
breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[W]here a judgment has been rendered against an international organisation in a dispute with one of its staff members, the circulation after delivery of the said judgment of a message defaming the complainant constitutes a very serious breach of the obligations incumbent on the organisation in its relations with its staff members. Such conduct disregards not only the [...] duty to respect the staff member's dignity and reputation but also - and this is an even more serious matter - the duty to safeguard the free exercise of his right to file a complaint with the Tribunal, which implies, inter alia, that the success of such a complaint shall not entail punitive or retaliatory measures against him."
Keywords:
breach; complaint; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
Judgment 2680
104th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the decision [...] by which he obtained satisfaction was delivered after he had filed his complaint, the complainant is not entitled to costs. Indeed, the complaint was premature because [...] that decision was delivered within the applicable time limit."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; date; decision; no award of costs; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
