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 1603
82nd Session, 1997
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The International Civil Service Commission "may make recommendations for aligning conditions of service in the common system and may decide on the methods of determining them. Yet the staff may still challenge any action by that body, independent though it be of the organisation that employs them. [...] So the complainants may challenge the lawfulness of the Commission's method [...] even though the FAO has done no more than fall in line."
Keywords:
complaint; coordinated organisations; general decision; icsc decision; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; rule of another organisation; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 1601
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already held - for example, in Judgment 1081 [...] under 4 - the mere fact that a decision affects a category of staff and is therefore a general one does preclude challenge. To quote Article VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute], which is about the time limits, a complainant may challenge 'a decision affecting a class of officials'. Yet not every complaint that challenges a general decision will be receivable. The complainant must comply with the requirement in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute that internal remedies be first exhausted. In keeping with that rule and with precedent - for example Judgment 1134 [...] under 4 - 'a complaint will be irreceivable if it challenges a general decision that must ordinarily be put into effect by individual decisions against which internal appeal will lie'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1081, 1134
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1598
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The new claim to costs is irreceivable because it was filed after the closure of the written proceedings."
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of suit;
Judgment 1595
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Even if she were unqualified for the post the complainant would not forfeit her right to challenge the appointment."
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; condition; internal candidate; receivability of the complaint; vacancy notice;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal "may not replace the Organisation's assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment. So the complaint is irreceivable insofar as the complainant is claiming reinstatement in her former duties and permanent appointment to the post."
Keywords:
appointment; claim; competence of tribunal; discretion; judicial review; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1591
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal may not order the Chairman of the EPO's Council to offer him an apology. It "is not competent to issue an order of that kind to the authorities of an international organisation."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; executive body; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
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 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 1549
81st Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An official of an international organisation who applies for a vacancy is entitled to have his application considered and assessed according to the set procedure once the organisation admits it under the terms of the vacancy notice. It may not deny that an applicant has a cause of action after it has appointed someone else, especially if the applicant is challenging the appointment on the grounds of breach of his rights in failure to apply the proper procedure".
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; cause of action; competition; due process; internal candidate; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Whether [the complainant who is now retired] still has any interest in the quashing of someone else's appointment is moot; but he still has an interest in exposing a breach of due process which may warrant an award of damages: see Judgment 729 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 729
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; claim moot; compensation; competition; due process; flaw; internal candidate; post; procedural flaw; receivability of the complaint; retirement;
Judgment 1547
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The claim by Mr. C. to an award of damages to the union is irreceivable because his complaint is in his own name."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff union;
Judgment 1543
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Administrative Council exercised its discretion under Article 19(2) [of the EPO's Protocol on Privileges and Immunities] in declining to waive the President's immunity from jurisdiction. Such exercise of discretion is a matter outside the Tribunal's competence, affecting as it does relations between the defendant organisation and a member State. The complaint is therefore 'clearly irreceivable' and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 19(2) OF THE EPO PROTOCOL ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; discretion; executive head; iloat statute; judicial review; member state; organisation; privileges and immunities; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; summary procedure; waiver of immunity;
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 1534
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The FAO submits that his complaint is irreceivable because he has failed to exhaust his internal remedies. Though he filed before he got the final decision [...] the Committee took a whole year to come up with a three-page report and the Director-General another five months to let the complainant have a decision. Such delays are exorbitant and unpardonable. Under the circumstances the complainant was entitled to come straight to the Tribunal without waiting any longer for a reply from the Director-General. The objections to receivability fail."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1528
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The precedents are clear: "A reply to a further request for reconsideration is not a new decision setting off a new time limit for appeal. The complaint fails because it is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; complaint; confirmatory decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1526
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Director-General having waived, in accordance with Staff Rule 1240.2, the complainant's obligation to go through the internal appeal procedure, she has exhausted the remedies open to her within the Organization, as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute required her to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1240.2
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; executive head; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"That he set out his pleas in a brief entered several months [after filing his complaint] after due extension of the time limit granted for the purpose, has no bearing on receivability. As was held in Judgment 1305 [...] under 16 - to which the Tribunal draws the organization's attention - the Registrar may as such take any action he sees fit to safeguard due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1305
Keywords:
case law; complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; new time limit; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1521
81st Session, 1996
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The WTO has applied for interpretation of Judgment 1407. It wants to know, in particular, whether that judgment prevents application to the complainant of one of its circulars. The Tribunal holds that [the judgment in question] is "quite clear and leaves no room for interpretation [...] what the organization really wants is that the Tribunal say whether the circular is lawful. That being so, its application is clearly irreceivable and must be dismissed under the summary procedure in Article 7 of its Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 1520
81st Session, 1996
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organization objects "that the complainants are just acting as a front for the Staff Association and fall foul of the precedents that declare complaints by such associations to be irreceivable: see for example Judgment 911. [The Tribunal finds that] the complainants have filed complaints in their own name and are quite free to claim rights as officials of the WTO by the means at their disposal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
case law; competence of tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The general decisions which the Assembly and Executive Council of the WTO took and which came into effect as announced in the circular affect the complainants' right to legal status in line with the common system, particularly as to the amounts of end-of-service entitlements, notice of dismissal and the general rules on retirement pensions. None of those provisions - some of which have indeed been dropped - directly infringes any of the rights that the complainants are asserting. They may, if they so wish, properly challenge any individual decision that applies to the provisions. Insofar as they are challenging the circular their complaints are therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; coordinated organisations; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a "decision refusing their claim to a promise from the Organization to preserve the rights they had under the old Staff Regulations and Rules. Any decisions that may be taken to give effect to the general rules will be challengeable provided that there is some actual dispute for the Tribunal to rule on. Here there is none. The complainants cite no individual decision that causes them injury. They may not contrive such dispute by seeking promises from the Organization."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1519
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The organization "objects that [one of] the complainants' [pleas] is irreceivable because they did not put it forward in support of their original claim. The objection is mistaken: receivability depends on the making of prior claims, not of prior pleas. [...] They may enter whatever pleas they like, including any they did not make in support of their internal appeal."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1516
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The organization is [...] wrong to argue that [the complainant] has never sought reconsideration [...] of the decision setting the degree of her invalidity [...] and so has no adverse decision to impugn on that score." "It is true that as worded her original claims were not about the degree of her invalidity [...] but there is much evidence to show that the competent units of the organization did realise she was seeking review on medical grounds" "both the complainant and senior officers believed that review was on the way. [...] So it is odd to find the defendant now arguing that she had to get an express decision before seeking review".
Keywords:
complaint; good faith; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1510
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An international civil servant may not ordinarily impugn a general rule that does not affect himself. Yet he may challenge any individual decision that does him injury; in so doing he may support his claims with any plea he likes; and he may thus plead breach of some general principle or of a written rule or clause of his contract that constitutes a term of appointment." The complainants are "just as free to plead flaws in the material rules as any mistakes of law or fact in assessing the peculiarities of their own position."
Keywords:
breach; cause of action; complaint; contract; general decision; general principle; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
< 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 >
|
