Complainant (56, 55, 71, 73, 74, 673, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 643, 682, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 93, 534, 535, 659, 655, 704, 705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 760, 889, 758, 759,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Complainant
Total judgments found: 173
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2394
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since he partially succeeds, the complainant is entitled to costs, which he may claim directly before the Tribunal, contrary to the defendant's plea".
Keywords:
claim; complainant; costs; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2381
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is for complainants to put forward specific arguments in support of their complaints, concisely and precisely, so that the Tribunal may rule on their claims in full knowledge of the facts."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. "The particular circumstances upon which the ITU relies to argue that the complainant should not be granted her step X increment are that the unsatisfactory nature of her services had already been documented prior to the report signed on 3 May 2002 and that she did not cooperate with the establishment of her periodic appraisals. It may at once be noted that the appraisal for the relevant period was not made in May 2002, but in November of that year. Further, and given the complainant's absence on sick leave at various times during the relevant appraisal periods, it is difficult to infer lack of cooperation on her part. However, and more to the point, the matters upon which the Union relies fall far short of establishing that it made a genuine effort to comply with its own procedures, and do not show that the complainant frustrated or sabotaged any such effort. That being so [...], those considerations cannot defeat the complainant's entitlement to her step X increment retroactively. The treatment of the complainant by the ITU is [...] unacceptable."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; date; evidence; increment; liability; organisation; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; period; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; sick leave; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."
Keywords:
appointment; career; complainant; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
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 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 2237
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The application to intervene that has been filed must be dismissed since the applicant is not in the same situation in fact and in law to that of the complainant.
Keywords:
complainant; difference; intervention; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; consequence; decision; duty to inform; elements; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; waiver of immunity;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543
Keywords:
breach; case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; general principle; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right; terms of appointment; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. "Sound judicial policy requires that the Tribunal encourage parties to settle their disputes after as well as before judgment. That cannot happen if persons, like the complainant, who did not participate in a case, even though he might have done so, can interfere after the fact and prevent such settlement."
Keywords:
complainant; execution of judgment; general principle; iloat; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court; 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 2189
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant has [...] requested that the Tribunal act to [...] prevent public access to its judgments concerning her. The Tribunal cannot do this since its judgments are necessarily public, but it has recently adopted a practice of not mentioning the names of individuals so that such names are not available as a matter of course to any person reading the Tribunal's judgments on the internet. Cases that have already been published have passed into the public domain and are of course beyond recall."
Keywords:
complainant; decision; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; publication of judgment; request by a party;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not undertake a job classification exercise, which lies solely within the authority of the defendant. However, the succession of errors made in this case, as acknowledged both by the Classification Review Committee and the [Organisation] itself, leaves room for serious doubts concerning the objectivity of the rationale for the classifications that are being challenged. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainants must not suffer any injury from the Organisation's impossibility to reconstitute the elements on which the classification was made. [The Tribunal] has to assess the effects of the errors committed and of the [Organisation]'s inability to indicate precisely the methods followed by the consultant in his recommendation to maintain the complainants' posts at [the same] grade."
Keywords:
complainant; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2138
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant requests that he be considered for a long- term contract. He "can take no comfort from the case of another staff member in a somewhat similar situation who was given a long-term contract [...] The awarding of such contracts is exceptional and wholly discretionary and the fact that a contract is granted to one staff member creates no rights for any other staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; complainant; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; equal treatment; exception; executive head; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2122
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submitted her candidacy for a post of legal assistant. Her application was not taken into consideration because she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions set out in the notice of competition. She submits that there is a contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2 which sets out conditions for eligibility. The Tribunal finds "no contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2. [...] Contrary to what the complainant appears to suggest, the fact that Article 30(1) of the Staff Regulations says that the 'selection of candidates shall be based on qualifications' does not preclude the setting of eligibility conditions. [...] The eligibility conditions provided for in Rule No. 2 offend against no provision of the Staff Regulations. [...] The complainant did not meet all the conditions set in the notice of competition, and the Agency was therefore right to reject her application."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2121
93rd Session, 2002
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 and 14
Extract:
The recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel not to renew the complainant's contract was followed. She submits that "at no time was she given a reason for the decision not to renew her appointment. The failure to cite a reason runs counter to principles embodied in a series of Tribunal judgments [...] to state that another body has recommended against renewal, without stating why, is not enough to satisfy the Tribunal that a reason for such non-renewal was given."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory body; case law; complainant; contract; duty to substantiate decision; evidence; general principle; grounds; iloat; non-renewal of contract; recommendation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
