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 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
“Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 580
Keywords:
final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4075
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;
Judgment 4074
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to review or amend the separation agreement offered to him and to terminate his appointment without the appropriate financial package.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the internal consideration of his grievance. The Global Fund argues this claim is irreceivable. Routinely and necessarily such a claim can only first be made in the Tribunal. The claim is receivable. The Global Fund contends the internal appeal process took 11 months, which was reasonable. The complainant draws attention to the fact that there was a period of nearly 18 months between the public delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment and the final decision of the Executive Director. Even taking that longer period, significant periods of time can be attributed to the conduct of the complainant or his counsel, particularly the time taken to respond to a Global Fund proposal concerning informal discussions to resolve the matter in the first half of 2015. The internal appeal took approximately 11 months. This is a lengthy period but, in all the circumstances including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, it was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4072
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaint, namely that the complainant, by signing the separation agreement, waived his right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainant contends that he signed this agreement as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated his consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3424, consideration 12). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreement, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainant’s pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 3610, 3750
Keywords:
agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 4071
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaints, namely that the complainants, by signing the separation agreements, waived their right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainants contend that they signed these agreements as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated their consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3423, consideration 13). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreements, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainants’ pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3610, 3750
Keywords:
agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see, for example, Judgment 2856, under 5). As a result of the reinstatement of the complainant’s firearm authorisation, the impugned decision is no longer operative and, consequently, the complainant’s claim for the reversal of “the decision to temporarily remove [his] authority to carry a firearm or, in case this cannot be granted, reinstate [his] authorisation to carry a firearm” has been overtaken by the 22 February 2017 decision. The fact that the impugned decision is no longer in force, however, does not resolve the other live issues between the parties concerning the lawfulness of that decision and the consequences of that decision for which the complainant claims moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4059
127th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to affiliate her to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant does not dispute the grounds on which the finding of irreceivability was made. However, she asks the Tribunal to consider her complaint as an “exceptional case”. The relevant case law of the Tribunal consistently states:
“Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, 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’ [...].”
(Judgment 3758, under 10; see also Judgment 3687, under 9, and the cases cited therein.)
In Judgment 3758, under 11, the Tribunal added:
“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 3439, under 4.)”
However, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of the strict adherence to the applicable time limits. In Judgment 3687, under 10, the Tribunal stated:
“[I]n very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
(See also Judgment 3758, under 12.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405, 3439, 3687, 3758
Keywords:
delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4055
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his request for the payment of an education allowance for his daughter.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaint is clearly irreceivable. As the President’s final decision [...] was not impugned before the Tribunal within the time limit established by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, its lawfulness became immune from challenge. In these circumstances, the EPO rightly rejected the complainant’s request to reopen the case. It follows that the complaint is clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules; Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 10 &14
Extract:
As the defendant organisation notes, the complainant’s “request” to have his fixed-term contract redefined was not submitted to the Advisory Board. It is true that in his internal appeal the complainant asked only to have his fixed-term contract extended for one year. The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas, as the present complainant does, before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5). [...]
As stated in consideration 10, [..] the Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
At the forefront of the ICC’s contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainant’s Complaint about the receivability of the complaint. Plainly enough, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as established by Article II of its Statute, can only arise at a point when a complainant seeks to invoke that jurisdiction.
Article II is concerned with the vindication and enforcement of individual rights or privileges of staff members of international organisations, conferred either by normative legal documents regulating or governing their employment, or conferred by the terms of their appointment. Similarly, the Article is concerned with the enforcement of obligations or duties of international organisations towards their staff. An overlay on these rights, privileges, duties and obligations is the Tribunal’s case law. These rights or privileges and duties or obligations may attach to individual staff members or a particular class of staff members which, obviously enough, can, and often does, include all staff members. This description of the scope of Article II can be expressed in a variety of ways. But this description captures the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Article II. There are many judgments of the Tribunal that address this question including, recently, Judgments 3526, consideration 5, 3642, consideration 11, and 3760, consideration 6.
Articles 46 and 47 of the Rome Statute together with the implementing Rules in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, are not intended to confer on members of staff, and do not do so, a particular right or privilege for the benefit of staff; nor are they intended to impose, and do not do so, a particular duty or obligation directed to members of staff. Rather, those provisions are intended to benefit the world at large. That is to say, they are provisions intended to preserve the integrity of the ICC as an international court by imposing a standard of conduct on the judges and senior officials of the Court, creating a mechanism for the enforcement of those standards and, additionally, affording anyone with an interest the opportunity to enforce those standards. They are not provisions of a character comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute insofar as they are invoked by staff members other than, potentially, the officials directly affected, such as the Registrar, the Prosecutor or an individual judge. Accordingly, proceedings invoking Articles 46 and 47 alone and seeking their enforcement are not within the Tribunal’s competence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3526, 3642, 3760
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant challenged [the] decision in this complaint on a number of grounds. Some of those grounds are beyond the scope of the present complaint, which is solely concerned with the decision not to select the complainant to fill the contested post. The complainant challenges, for example, the reclassification of his post in the reorganized Caribbean Unit/Section. However, that is the central challenge in his first complaint and is beyond the scope of the present complaint. It will therefore not be considered in this judgment.
The complainant also challenges the reorganization of the Caribbean Unit/Section and the creation of the new post of Head of the Caribbean Section; the definition of his role in the newly created Section and what he describes as the effective abolition of his post as a result of the creation of the post of Head of the Caribbean Section which he alleges has identical functions to those which he carried out as Head of the Caribbean Unit. The Tribunal observes that the complainant did not challenge these decisions internally within the required time. He therefore did not exhaust his internal remedies in relation to these matters, as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal requires. These grounds are irreceivable.
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Regarding Article VII, paragraph 1,[of the Tribunal's Statute] consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations. The following was stated, for example, in Judgment 1653, consideration 6: “According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint ‘shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations’. So where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules.”
In the same vein, it was stated in Judgment 1469, consideration 16, that to satisfy the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, that internal means of redress must be exhausted, the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but she or he must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure.
It has also been stated that a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to lodging a complaint with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3458, consideration 7: “It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
There are limited exceptions to the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1. The following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3714, consideration 12:
“The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute that internal remedies be exhausted will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgments 2912, consideration 6, 3397, consideration 1, and 3505, consideration 1). Moreover, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the above conditions are satisfied [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1469, 1653, 3458, 3714
Keywords:
exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
With respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. It was relevantly stated in Judgment 3559, consideration 3, that:
“Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”. It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to extend this period of time set forth by the Statute. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, this time limit is an objective matter of fact and the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint filed after it has expired. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for the time bar. The ninety-day period begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision. Where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see Judgments 2250, under 8, 3393, under 1, and 3467, under 2).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3559
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3945
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3942
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the complaint form filed with the Tribunal, the complainant identifies this opinion and recommendation of the Appeals Board, having regard to the date of decision identified on the form, as the impugned decision. [...] It appears, from the material before the Tribunal, that no decision was made by the Director-General following, and based upon, the Appeals Board report in the period of a little over three months between the issuing of the Appeals Board report and the filing of the complaint in the Tribunal. However, UNESCO does not challenge the receivability of the complaint in these proceedings, which can be taken to be an agreement that the matter can be dealt with by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint form; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3938
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
[The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3936
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who held the grade P-5 post of Head of UNESCO’s National Office in Kinshasa, challenges the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, to satisfy this requirement a complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal but must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure (see, for example, Judgment 3296, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
< 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 >
|
