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 4145
128th Session, 2019
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer one of his subordinates to another team.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s assertion that as the decision “directly adversely affected” him and caused him injury, he has the requisite standing as stated in the case law to bring the present complaint is also unfounded. Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute has been interpreted to require that for a complaint to be receivable the staff member must have a cause of action and the impugned decision must be one that, by its nature, is subject to challenge. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3426, consideration 16, in addition to the requirement that the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person as provided in paragraph 6 of the Article, paragraph 5 requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In Judgment 4048, consideration 5, the Tribunal elaborated that “to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it must be a decision adversely affecting the complainant concerning either rights, privileges, obligations or duties arising under the provisions of staff regulations or the complainant’s terms of appointment” and that “[t]he complaint must allege non-observance of either or both (see Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute)”. As the complaint does not relate to a decision involving the complainant’s terms of appointment or the provisions of the EMBL’s Staff Rules and Regulations, it does not disclose a cause of action and is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 4048
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; receivability ratione materiae;
Judgment 4143
128th Session, 2019
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official, challenges a letter from the Director of the Human Resources Services rejecting her request for damages and legal costs arising from the fact that the Commission reclassified at grade P-4 the post of Treasurer, which she held at grade P-3 before her separation from service.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4141
128th Session, 2019
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the CTA to reject his proposal to negotiate an agreed termination of his employment contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] contends [...] that the new administrative tribunal established at the CTA does not, for various reasons, provide the requisite guarantees of independence and impartiality. However, not only is the Tribunal, which is not competent to comment on the qualities and merits of another international tribunal, obviously not able to give credit to such criticisms, but the pleas invoked would not in any case be of such a nature as to allow it to disregard the aforementioned statutory provisions requiring recourse to the conciliation procedure before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It should further be noted that this plea wrongly disregards the very purpose of this procedure, which is to enable the complainant to resolve the dispute with the CTA by an agreement. Lastly, the fact, also pointed out by the complainant, that the CTA’s new administrative tribunal was not established at the time the present complaint was filed has no bearing on its receivability.
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 2, 3, 4
Extract:
The CTA, which withdrew its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by a decision of its Executive Board of 23 March 2018 that was notified to the Director-General of the ILO by a letter of the same date, submits that the Tribunal is therefore not competent to rule on the present complaint. According to the CTA, which had at the same time provided that disputes between itself and its staff members would henceforth be resolved by a new tribunal established at the CTA, its withdrawal from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction took immediate effect and therefore precludes the Tribunal from considering the aforementioned complaint, registered on 13 August 2018, since it was filed subsequent to the withdrawal.
However, as under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal the recognition by an international organization of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the ILO, the principle of parallelism of form requires that the withdrawal of recognition of jurisdiction should also be subject, before taking effect, to a discussion by the same body. As the Tribunal has previously found, it can only be bound, when an organization decides to withdraw from its jurisdiction, when it has been notified of the ILO Governing Body’s deliberations taking note of such a decision (see Judgment 1043, consideration 3).
In the present case, it was only on 30 October 2018 that the ILO Governing Body considered the withdrawal by the CTA of its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4140
128th Session, 2019
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct during her probation period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal has often recalled, a staff member may not on her or his own initiative evade the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress prior to lodging a complaint with the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2811, considerations 10 and 11, 3399, consideration 4, 3706, consideration 3, or 4056, consideration 5). A complainant cannot, in particular, claim to have respected this obligation simply because she or he has – as the complainant sought to do, in this case, by means of her letter of 3 December 2016 – sent an ultimatum to the decision-making authority to no avail (see Judgments 3302, consideration 4, or 3554, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3302, 3399, 3554, 3706, 4056
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
“[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
“[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted immediately. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
“[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
“[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
“[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;
Judgment 4131
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the President of the Office to reject his appeal against the referral of his case to the Appeals Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complaint is irreceivable. Although the complainant has formally exhausted the internal means of redress available to him, his internal appeal was directed against what was merely a step in the process which would culminate in a final decision on his appeal. According to the case law, the steps leading to a final decision can be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning that final decision (see, for example, Judgment 3961, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein; Judgment 3958, consideration 15; and Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860, 3958, 3961
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4126
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC who had separated from service in October 2015, challenges the rejection of his harassment complaint filed in March 2018 against the President of the Staff Union Council.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is irreceivable. Although Section 4 of Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005 states that it applies to former staff members, it is firmly established in the case law that the rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute (see, for example, Judgment 3889, under 3). Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of the ICC, does not allege any breach of his terms of appointment or of ICC Staff Rules applicable to him while he was still an ICC official. His complaint, which does not fall within the competence of the Tribunal, is therefore clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3889
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; former official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4120
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Staff representatives have a legitimate and important role in the functioning of international organisations. However there are limits to that role, at least as may involve rights enforceable in proceedings in the Tribunal. In its reasoning the IAC referred to Judgment 2919 of this Tribunal in support of a widely cast role for staff representatives. However, the effect of that judgment may have been misunderstood and, in any event, the Tribunal has recently indicated that Judgment 2919, if read too widely, went beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence (see Judgment 3515, consideration 3). In the present case, whether Article 120(a) of the Service Regulations had been applied correctly or incorrectly to the individual the subject of the internal audit was not a matter in respect of which the complainant had an interest capable of being pursued in a complaint to this Tribunal. Nor did the complainant have an enforceable right to obtain the results of the internal audit. Accordingly the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint in the Tribunal is irreceivable (see Judgment 3426, consideration 16). Thus, the complaint should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3426, 3515
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 4119
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4016
Keywords:
allowance; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; implied decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4114
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The fifth complaint is irreceivable because the complainant had not, at the time of its filing, exhausted internal means of redress. The complainant argues that he had, because Article 110(2)(c) of the Service Regulations says, in relation to certain specified decisions, they are excluded from the internal appeal procedure, including “decisions taken after consultation of the Disciplinary Committee”. However the Tribunal has held in Judgment 3888, consideration 9, that Article 110 of the Service Regulations does not absolve a complainant from the need to seek a review to satisfy the Tribunal’s jurisdictional threshold that a complainant must have exhausted internal means of redress. The complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3888
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4113
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4112
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests retroactively his promotions.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The EPO was correct in dismissing the internal appeal as time-barred. In the result, internal means of redress have not been exhausted and the complaint is irreceivable. For this reason, the complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4103
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him mission status during the first six months of his assignment to a field post.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[A] complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits. As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective (see Judgment 3758, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
< 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 >
|
