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 2350

  
  97th Session, 2004
  European Free Trade Association
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  The complainant seeks the revision of certain rules and policies. EFTA submits that such a claim is irreceivable. "In this it is clearly correct. Relevantly, the Tribunal is competent only to hear complaints with respect to the non-observance of the terms of appointment or the provisions of EFTA's Staff Regulations and Rules."

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; iloat statute; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; vested competence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2345

  
  97th Session, 2004
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 1(c)

  Extract:

  "[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
  In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
  As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."

  Keywords:

  complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2316

  
  96th Session, 2004
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."

  Keywords:

  complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
  

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2315

  
  96th Session, 2004
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 28-29

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2312

  
  96th Session, 2004
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2311

  
  96th Session, 2004
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "The complaints must [...] be dismissed. Consequently, the applications to intervene filed by interveners whose claims are the same as the complainants' must likewise be dismissed. Insofar as some of the applications to intervene include other claims, they are irreceivable, as are those submitted by unidentified claimants."

  Keywords:

  claim; complainant; complaint; difference; identical claims; intervention; official; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2297

  
  96th Session, 2004
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
  

  Keywords:

  advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2290

  
  96th Session, 2004
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The Organisation contends that the internal appeal against a decision not to refund medical costs was not lodged in time. In doing so, it takes as the starting point of the time-limit the insurance representative's statement of account rejecting the request for refund. This "plea [...] is unfounded [...] This is because the insurance representative is not an organ of the Organisation, able to take decisions in the meaning of the Office's Service Regulations for Permanent Employees. Decisions concerning insurance benefits are taken by the Office, and more specifically by its President, in accordance with Article 83 of those Regulations."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Article 83 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
  
  

  Keywords:

  complaint; decision; executive head; health insurance; illness; insurance; internal appeal; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2279

  
  96th Session, 2004
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4(b)

  Extract:

  As regards receivability of a complaint challenging an administrative circular, "A distinction needs to be drawn [...] between instructions whose purpose is to tell the Administration how to apply the law, which have no direct bearing on the legal status of staff members, and administrative decisions which impose obligations on staff themselves, particularly decisions affecting an indeterminate number of staff." (in this case, it was an administrative circular dealing with the introduction of an electronic system for recording the attendance of staff members)

  Keywords:

  administrative instruction; cause of action; complaint; consequence; effect; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; working hours;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2278

  
  96th Session, 2004
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The complainant here is unrepresented. While the employment of a legally trained advisor is not a requirement and is no guarantee that a case will be well presented, the complainant's written pleadings are repetitive and contain largely unhelpful personal attacks on the member of the legal department who wrote the [Organisation]'s pleadings. They also contain unfounded and insulting comments about the EPO to which the latter properly objects. The Tribunal will limit the award of costs to 300 euros."

  Keywords:

  complaint; costs; counsel; rejoinder; reply;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2264

  
  95th Session, 2003
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3(e)

  Extract:

  "In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
  
  

  Keywords:

  complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2255

  
  95th Session, 2003
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  "The organization did not contest the receivability of the appeals to the appeals board and does not now contest that the complaints were timely filed in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute. Notwithstanding these facts, however, UNESCO now argues that the internal appeals to the Appeals Board were irreceivable and that accordingly, the complaints to the Tribunal are also irreceivable. [...] In Judgment 522, the Tribunal was faced with the identical situation and held: "There can be no doubt that the appropriate, if not the only, time to take the point was before the Appeals Board, since it is the proceedings before the Board that are said to be out of time [...] and not the proceedings before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has therefore now to consider whether or not justice requires that the organization should be given a second opportunity to take the point. Three factors ought to be considered. The first is whether the point is a clear and compelling one. The second is whether there is an adequate explanation of the organization's failure to take it. The third is whether the complainant may be prejudiced by the organizations's failure.' " The Tribunal applies, in the present case, the criteria set out in Judgment 552.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 522
  

  Keywords:

  case law; complaint; date; injury; internal appeal; new plea; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2250

  
  95th Session, 2003
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  When "the last day of the statutory ninety-day period [is] a holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day, in line with the Tribunal's ruling in Judgments 306 and 517".

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517
  

  Keywords:

  complaint; new time limit; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2244

  
  95th Session, 2003
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618
  

  Keywords:

  case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2236

  
  95th Session, 2003
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The right to intervene in a complaint filed before the Tribunal is available to persons who wish to claim the benefit of the judgment rendered on that complaint, without having themselves exhausted the remedies available to them. since the intervener has availed himself of the internal remedies and filed a complaint before the Tribunal on which judgment is delivered this day, his application to intervene is, therefore, irreceivable."

  Keywords:

  complaint; consequence; effect; intention of parties; internal appeal; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; right; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2218

  
  95th Session, 2003
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The Organization argues that the complainant submitted new "conclusions" to the Tribunal, compared to those he had put forward in his internal appeal [...]. In fact, the complainant's pleas, whether in the internal appeal or before the Tribunal, consist in challenging the decision taken regarding his grade and in obtaining a position in the normal salary scale at the level closest to the salary he had been receiving in the previous system. His request to be placed at a graded level within the new scale instead of one altogether outside the scale cannot properly be considered as going beyond the claims he had submitted in the internal appeals proceedings".

  Keywords:

  claim; complainant; complaint; decision; identical claims; iloat; internal appeal; interpretation; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; salary; scale;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2196

  
  94th Session, 2003
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal "notes [...] that even after the filing of the complaints, it took the organisation more than a year to bring the internal appeal procedure to a conclusion. By any standards, that is an unacceptable delay. The organisation's plea that it is overwhelmed by a heavy volume and a backlog of internal appeals may be a reason, but it is not an excuse. Incompetence or a lack of resources can never justify depriving employees of their right to a speedy and just resolution of their grievances."

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; complaint; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2160

  
  93rd Session, 2002
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "Clearly, most of the relief claimed is not within the power of the Tribunal to grant at this stage for it depends upon a finding by a competent body (a medical board) that the complainant in fact suffers from the psychological condition mentioned and a finding by another competent body (a compensation board) that such condition is service-related. Equally clearly, however, she is entirely within her rights to demand that such bodies be constituted without delay."

  Keywords:

  claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; delay; illness; medical board; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >