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 752
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Though [the complainant] did rely on facts of which he had been unaware at the outset, there was no new time limit on that account, the time limit in the Service Regulations being objectively determined and unqualified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant or concealed some paper from him so as to do him harm, in breach of the good faith which should govern administration. But the condition is not fulfilled here."
Keywords:
exception; general principle; good faith; internal appeal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 738
58th Session, 1986
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
At the end of a correspondence with the office of the Director-General, the complainant wrote that he would assume that no appeal lay against the Director-General's decision, unless the organisation informed him that this was not the case. The Tribunal holds that as the holder of a Ph.D. in law and head of finance and legal affairs, the complainant should know that the Director-General has no power to absolve an official from his obligation to exhaust the means of redress open to him.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 732
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"This complaint is not about execution as such but about the allegedly harmful consequences of the way in which the FAO executed Judgment 620. That is not a matter that is ordinarily connected with execution and it is therefore one that must go through the internal appeal procedure before it can come to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 297, 620
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint; consequence; execution of judgment; injury; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 730
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case the Tribunal, having found that in all the circumstances the complainant exercised due diligence in the pursuit of his remedies and consequently that his failure to file a complaint within the prescribed period was caused solely by the organization's breach of obligation to render the necessary assistance, concludes that the delay does not render the complaint irreceivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; exception; negligence; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 727
58th Session, 1986
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is mistaken in his contention that the filing of a suit with the municipal courts can have any effect on the receivability of a complaint lodged with the Tribunal. Suing Eurocontrol before the Sittard court did not have the effect of suspending the time limit for filing this complaint."
Keywords:
complaint; effect; inquiry; investigation; municipal court; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 725
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant impugns a decision of the President approving his performance report for 1980 and 1981. Because the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress by awaiting the report of the Appeals Committee and the President's final decision before filing his complaint, the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The general rule is that identical claims may not be submitted to two different bodies. At the date of filing these claims were before the internal appeals body and they are therefore irreceivable. Nor may the same claims be twice submitted to the same instance.
Keywords:
identical claims; parallel proceedings; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 724
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have recourse to the Tribunal where the administration fails to take a decision upon his claim within 60 days of its notification."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 723
58th Session, 1986
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal applies the general rule on the burden of proof which requires the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. as the organization has no evidence of the actual date of receipt of the decision, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the complainant. The complaint is therefore not time-barred.
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 700
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Having been filed before the complainant had exhausted the internal remedies, the complaint is irreceivable. The case "is remitted to the President in order that he may reconsider his decision of 19 February 1985 in the light of Judgment 699 and he is ordered to communicate his reconsidered decision to the complainant within one month."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 699
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case sent back to organisation; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 698
57th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is immaterial that there was correspondence after the decision of 24 May. insofar as that correspondence related to the issues decided on 24 May it merely confirmed the decision and set off no new time limit for lodging an internal appeal."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 697
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal will hold the internal means of redress to have been exhausted if the complainant has pursued them with all diligence but without being able within a reasonable period of time to obtain a result. In this case, for the Tribunal to entertain the complaint, the complainant would have to satisfy it that there was no objective prospect of the internal process being concluded within a reasonable time. He has not done so.
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 694
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant took notice of a 'seniority list'. He objects to the level at which he was placed according to the document. The Tribunal dismisses the grievance on the grounds that the list does not constitute a decision and has no effect in law.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; seniority list;
Judgment 689
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant had been informed in November that his internal appeal had been provisionally rejected and referred to the Appeals Committee. The internal appeal reached the Appeals Committee in January. The Appeals Committee had not had time to render a decision by February, at which time the complaint was lodged. The complainant came before the Tribunal without having exhausted the internal means of redress. The complaint is dismissed.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 685
57th Session, 1985
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to the detriment to himself and his family caused by his assignment to Nepal. So the decision he impugns is the one informing him of his transfer, of which he got notice in March 1981. Since he waited until March 1983 to put his case to the Appeal Board the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
consequence; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 676
56th Session, 1985
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
A staff member may ask the administration for review of a decision either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken or where the staff member is relying on facts or evidence of which he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken. If either condition is fulfilled the administration is under a duty to review, and the new decision will set a new time limit.
Keywords:
case reopened; complainant; condition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 671
56th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was the second signatory of bank checks for amounts in excess of actual expenditure. Criminal proceedings were introduced against the first signatory. A sum representing part of the compensation payable to the complainant was distraint. The complainant seeks payment of that amount. The Tribunal observes that appeal against the decision was not lodged within the time limit and that the decision can no longer be challenged. However, because the decision is a "measure of distraint", it remains open to the complainant to request a review on the basis of a change of the position in law or in fact.
Keywords:
deduction; measure of distraint; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 669
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The general decision impugned* in this case puts no exact figure on the entitlement of the staff members concerned. That will be determined only when the administration comes to take individual decisions in pursuance of the general decision, viz. the Council's approval of the new text of [the] Article".
(*) amending a provision in the Service Regulations on benefits payable in the event of invalidity.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; invalidity; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 667
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [a complaint must also comply with] the rule in Article VII(1) of the Statute that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant "is asking the Tribunal to set aside the Council's decision, not in its entirety, but only insofar as it affects himself. [The argument fails.] Obviously to set the impugned decision aside insofar as it affects the complainant would in fact have much the same consequences as to set it aside erga omnes.
Keywords:
application for quashing; consequence; enforcement; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 666
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Any person to whom the Tribunal is open under Article II of its Statute may apply to intervene in a case on the conditions stated in Article 17[2] of the Rules of court. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage, and the Tribunal decides whether they shall be allowed. The applications to intervene in the present case are receivable and the Tribunal's ruling on the merits of the complaints will hold good for the applications as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE RULES;
ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 663
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
By virtue of Article VII[1], "the Tribunal will declare irreceivable a complaint impugning a general decision against which there can be no direct internal appeal, but which must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which such appeal does lie. There are two reasons for so construing Article VII. The first is that the Tribunal is relieved of ruling on the validity of a general decision to which it may be unable to foresee exactly how effect will be given. The second is that the Tribunal will not be acting on an application from a single complainant to set aside a general decision which other staff may not object to."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The impugned decision is a general one. "Before coming before the Tribunal the complainant must wait until the administration has taken individual decisions concerning him and he has exhausted the internal means of redress. To declare his complaints irreceivable causes him no prejudice since he may appeal against future individual decisions, first inside the organisation, and then, if necessary to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The mere fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII[2] of the Statute of the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
< 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 >
|
