Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 770

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >

• Judgment 2494

  
  100th Session, 2006
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2461

  
  99th Session, 2005
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 1-3

  Extract:

  ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
  "The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Statute
  Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations
  
  

  Keywords:

  iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2457

  
  99th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
  

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2439

  
  99th Session, 2005
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules
  
  

  Keywords:

  complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2424

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
  

  Keywords:

  case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2418

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "Although the EPO has disputed the complainants' claim for costs of these proceedings on the basis that their counsel is a full-time EPO staff member, it is appropriate to award each complainant 1,000 euros to cover their out of pocket expenses, time and trouble."

  Keywords:

  claim; condition; costs; counsel; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2417

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416
  

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2416

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 8 and 11

  Extract:

  "The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
  The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2410

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[M]onthly pension payments are not notified individually except when pensioners are informed of decisions concerning the rate of adjustment decided by CERN's competent bodies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that, while the bank statement does not constitute a decision, it does reflect a decision taken to credit the complainant's account and, just like a payslip, this decision may be challenged by all legal means."

  Keywords:

  adjustment; date of notification; decision; general decision; individual decision; payslip; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint; salary;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "[I]t is CERN's Council which decides pension adjustments; and the individual decisions on pension rates have as their sole legal basis the general decisions taken periodically by CERN's Council, the lawfulness of which may indeed be challenged in the context of a complaint directed against such individual decisions (see Judgments 1000, 1451 and 2129). In this case, the complainant's objections concern only the lawfulness of the position advocated by the Governing Board of the Pension Fund, when it considered that it could not give its backing to the extraordinary pension adjustment requested by the [CERN Pensioners' Association, of which the complainant is the President]. Since this refusal to support the latter's request before CERN's competent bodies cannot be considered as a legislative act of general application, any pleas based on its alleged unlawfulness must fail."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Article II.1.15 of the Regulations of the CERN's Pension Fund
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1451, 2129
  

  Keywords:

  adjustment; advisory opinion; cern pension fund; decision; executive body; general decision; individual decision; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2379

  
  98th Session, 2005
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "The complainant [...] claims days of special leave, which he had been denied, to sit [...] examinations. The Tribunal notes that it does not have the authority to order such action."

  Keywords:

  claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; special leave;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2376

  
  98th Session, 2005
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complainant's contract was not renewed. He later reached a settlement agreement with the ILO which stated that the decision not to renew his contract would have no consequence on any future application submitted by him. He alleges a breach of the terms of the settlement agreement. "[T]he settlement, concluded well after the complainant's loss of his position as a staff member, was not a term or condition of his appointment, nor did it form part of the Staff Regulations. The Statute [of the Tribunal], in Article II(4), requires that where the dispute relates to an agreement outside the terms of employment of a staff member, the agreement must contain a provision giving the Tribunal competence over disputes with regard to its execution so that the Tribunal can hear such a dispute. There is none. The complaint is [therefore] irreceivable."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 4, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; date; iloat statute; non-renewal of contract; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vested competence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2366

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

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "Ordinarily, the process of decision making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. Occasionally however, what appears to be a single and final decision may embody more than one decision. That will be the case if separate and distinct issues have to be decided. So, too, a decision which does not resolve an entire dispute may nonetheless constitute a final decision if it is a decision on a separate and distinct issue. The present is such a case."

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; complaint; condition; decision; definition; difference; general principle; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2364

  
  97th Session, 2004
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "Even though it is only the 'decision' of 10 March 2002 which he wishes to have set aside, the complainant refers to facts which arose after that date and adds in his rejoinder that, since the final decision was dated 23 July 2002, 'all grievances raised until that date can validly be taken into account' as part of his complaint. [...] With regard to the claims based on facts subsequent to 10 March 2002 and presented as grounds for appeal, since internal remedies were not exhausted (Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal), they must be deemed irreceivable. [...] Furthermore, the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  claim; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; subsequent fact;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2360

  
  97th Session, 2004
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Organization considers that the claims for compensation for certain heads of injury were not submitted during the internal appeal proceedings and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. "[T]he claims to compensation for moral injury and for breach of the complainant's rights were put forward in the internal appeal, though in a different form, and are certainly receivable, even though some heads of injury, concerning the complainant's state of health in particular, had not been enlarged upon, since the complainant had stated in his appeal [...] that the decision he contested caused him 'undoubted material and moral injury'."

  Keywords:

  breach; claim; compensation; decision; difference; formal requirements; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material injury; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2324

  
  97th Session, 2004
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "It is not in doubt that the quashing or reversing of a decision may result in that decision being deprived of all legal consequences or effects. That is the case, for example, where a decision to withhold an automatic salary increment is reversed with effect from the date on which the increment would otherwise have been payable. In a case of that kind, the subsequent decision deprives the person concerned of a cause of action. And if there is no cause of action when a complaint is filed with this Tribunal, the complaint is, on that account, irreceivable. So much is clear from Judgments 1431 and 2065. But the mere fact that a final and substantive decision has been reversed or withdrawn does not deprive the previous decision of its character as a final and substantive decision."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1431, 2065
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; consequence; decision; effect; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2316

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

  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 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;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >