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 1736
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Of course the first report should have been done earlier and the complainant is right enough to cite Rule 540.1. but [...] he was himself largely to blame for the delay, not having filled up the report form until [a given date]. Besides, his second- level supervisor had told him orally, before putting it in the report, that he was not cooperative enough. It is plain on the evidence that he knew full well that his performance had been found wanting; so he may not properly argue that he was told too late to be able to improve."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 540.1
Keywords:
complainant; date; delay; duty to inform; liability; performance report; period; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the right to be heard before termination, it must of course be respected where there is a proposal to terminate an appointment for disciplinary reasons or for unsatisfactory performance. A reduction-in-force committee does not, however, make findings of that kind but performs very different functions. That is clear from Manual paragraph II.9.340.3, which requires assessment 'essentially' on the basis of appraisal reports and other written records of performance and service."
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; duty to inform; internal appeals body; limits; organisation's duties; personal file; selection board;
Judgment 1712
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant's position."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; cause of action; complainant; consequence; effect; injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1658
83rd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to adjourn the case until a decision has been taken by the [...] Administrative Council of the EPO - on his application for referral of Judgment 1333 [...] to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. [...] The Tribunal asked the Organisation what was the status of any application from the complainant to the Administrative Council for such referral. The Organisation replied [...] enclosing a copy of a letter that the Chairman of its Council had written to the complainant [...] explaining that the conditions for such referral were not fulfilled: the Council was satisfied, said its Chairman, that the Tribunal had been competent to hear the case and that there had been no fundamental fault in the procedure followed. Since the complainant's application for referral to the court has been refused the Tribunal will now take up the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; competence of tribunal; complainant; executive body; icj; judgment of the tribunal; procedural flaw; request by a party; submissions;
Judgment 1639
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Director-General took the view that since the complainant admitted misconduct there was no need to give her any opportunity of defending herself. "The defendant's argument is mistaken. Before it notified to her the decision of summary dismissal it had brought no charges against her, and she therefore had no case to answer. And once it had made the decision to dismiss her without giving her a prior hearing, it had already acted in breach of due process. [...] An international organisation must inform the staff member of any charges it is levelling against him and give him the opportunity of answering before it takes any disciplinary action: audi alteram partem is a requirement it must observe in all circumstances. [...] Even though she had admitted to the incident, she did not on that account forfeit her right to be heard, be it to make a plea in mitigation or to give her own version of the facts or to raise any other issue she wished in her own defence."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complainant; disciplinary measure; duty to inform; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1609
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
An international organisation is liable for the injury a staff member may cause in the performance of duty, and that includes injury to other members of staff. [...] An organisation will of course not be liable for private misconduct of an employee that has no link with the performance of duty. But misconduct in the context of employment is another matter. When someone whom the organisation has appointed to act as supervisor or director commits an abuse of authority, the subordinate who suffers injury thereby is entitled to damages.
Keywords:
abuse of power; compensation; complainant; condition; conduct; injury; liability; misconduct; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation; supervisor;
Judgment 1566
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Organisation points out that the letter from the Director of staff policy "was sent neither by the President nor on his behalf. The complainant demurs, and he is right to do so. It was to the President by name that he had written [...]; that letter was what he got in reply and he was entitled to assume that it had been sent with the President's authority. Indeed the position in law would be the same even if the reply had never been written and if he were basing his complaint on implied rejection of the claims in his letter".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; good faith; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1556
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"In any event [the complainant] may not plead want of due notice [...]. Having been well aware as early as [53 days before] of the sort of post she was to get and of her duty station, she may not properly plead bad faith."
Keywords:
assignment; complainant; duty station; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; post; post description; transfer;
Judgment 1554
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant is wrong in contending that for challenging the non-renewal of his contract the time limit of ninety days was somehow held over because of a connexion with his application for a post. His complaint shows two distinct elements: the non-renewal of his contract on 31 January 1994 and his unsuccessful application for a post in April 1994. His failure to file a complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days of 31 January 1994 means that any claim in relation to his contract is time-barred. As for his application for a post, by the time he made it he was no longer an employee of the Organisation. Since an outside candidate for employment does not have access to the Tribunal his complaint is irreceivable in that regard as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; non-renewal of contract; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1551
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A claim to damages cannot succeed unless the claimant proves the unlawful act and the consequent injury. Since the complainant has not done so, his claim to damages must fail."
Keywords:
complainant; condition; evidence; injury; material damages; moral injury; request by a party;
Judgment 1542
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"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." Insofar as the present complaint purports to be made on behalf of a trade union it is irreceivable.
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; contract; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; status of complainant;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"This complaint, which seeks the grant of staff union facilities [...], does concern the exercise of the freedom of association that Article 30 of the Service Regulations guarantees. So the Tribunal is competent ratione materiae under Article II(5) and (6)(a) of its Statute, whereby it is open to any official - even one whose employment has ceased - who alleges breach in substance or in form of the Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) AND (6)(A) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; facilities; freedom of association; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; status of complainant; vested competence;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The complainant has no locus standi to make a claim against his former employer. After dismissal he no longer had any connection with the EPO in law. Nor, since he was in the EPO's employ for under ten years, is he entitled [...] to draw a pension: he can therefore derive no cause of action from the breach of any provision of the EPO's Rules and Regulations."
Keywords:
breach; cause of action; complainant; complaint; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment;
Judgment 1541
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to precedent complaints are to be joined only if they raise the same issues of fact and of law. The [complainant's] ninth and tenth complaints do rest on the same facts [...] and impugn the same decision, albeit each challenges a different part of it. But the issues of law are different [...] so the conditions for joinder are not met."
Keywords:
case law; complainant; complaint; condition; identical facts; joinder; refusal;
Judgment 1539
81st Session, 1996
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Since the complainant was in Switzerland at the time of recruitment she was not locally recruited for employment at the Brussels Office. It is true that the Association was free to incorporate in the letters of appointment a clause saying that she was nevertheless deemed to have local status. [...] For want of a clause expressly prescribing local status the presumption is that the parties did not agree that she should have such status. The conclusion is that the contracts, read together with the Staff Regulations, set out all the terms and conditions of employment, which conferred non-local status on the complainant and gave the association no right or power to treat her as having any other. And even if there was doubt on that score it was the association, which was the source of all the relevant documents, that had the duty to resolve it."
Keywords:
complainant; contract; duty station; intention of parties; local status; non-local status; offer; organisation's duties; place of origin; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1531
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
As for his claim to costs, "the Tribunal observes, in view of the intemperate language of his submissions, that he owes a duty of respect to the defendant and to its staff. Though his complaint succeeds in part, his claim to costs is disallowed because he has not fulfilled that duty."
Keywords:
complainant; conduct; freedom of speech; limits; no award of costs; official; organisation's reputation; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1509
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
When the complainant lodged a claim to reinstatement "he was neither a serving nor a former official of UNIDO, to which he was no more than an outside applicant for employment and whose decision was in fact a refusal to recruit him. That decision raises no question of non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official of UNIDO, or of its Staff Regulations. So again the Tribunal may not entertain the claim."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; official; refusal; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was assigned to a joint service of the United Nations and UNIDO at Vienna. The service was under UNIDO management. But "it was the United Nations that offered him both the appointments which he had while he was at Vienna, and it was to the United Nations that he addressed his acceptance of each offer, thereby concluding a contract of employment with the UN. Indeed that is why he addressed his letter of resignation to the Secretary-General of the UN. True, he addressed it to the Director-General of UNIDO as well, but that was merely in recognition of UNIDO's supervision of his work and did not mean that the un had ceased to be his employer. In sum, he was an official, not of UNIDO, but of the UN."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; complainant; contract; offer; official; organisation; resignation;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In Judgment 1932 - submits the [organisation] - the Tribunal held under 18 and 24 that [...] a suit, [filed in the general interests of the civil service,] of which the hallmark is action by staff associations or agents professing to represent them, does not form part of the system of individual appeal that the organisations which have recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction commonly provide for in their rules and that the Tribunal's own Statute contemplates. The Tribunal need not revert to that case law since this is not such a complaint. It has been filed by several officials with the commendable aim of making the proceedings simpler, and each of them is defending his own individual interests, even though they are the same as the others'. The objection [to receivability for being a 'collective' complaint] fails."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1446
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The material issue is whether abolition of the entitlement to a step increase for long service infringed an acquired right by interfering with a fundamental term of service that led the complainants to accept employment. "The Tribunal holds that the prospect of increases in emoluments after 20, 25, 30 and 35 years of satisfactory service was too remote to influence seriously the mind of the ordinary applicant in deciding to accept appointment [within the organization]".
Keywords:
acceptance; acquired right; amendment to the rules; complainant; contract; increment; satisfactory service; seniority; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1425
79th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant argues that an international official who is unfit for work may be dismissed only for reasons of health. "That is beside the point because hers is not a case of dismissal. What happened was that [...] CERN refused to renew her appointment".
Keywords:
complainant; contract; health reasons; incapacity; non-renewal of contract; separation from service; sick leave; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 1423
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the complainant's grade is P.2 he "has no locus standi in challenging any new salary scales applicable to the general service category of staff. Because he belongs to another category of staff the revision of those scales cannot cause him injury."
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; complainant; general service category; injury; lack of injury; professional category; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
