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 3935
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
UNESCO submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds of its lack of intelligibility. [...] The Tribunal agrees with the Organization that both the structure and the drafting of the complainant’s submissions might have been clearer. However, the complaint is sufficiently intelligible to enable the other party to identify its essential purpose and the main pleas on which the complainant relies. The content of UNESCO’s reply demonstrates, moreover, that it was able to understand fully the complainant’s claims and pleas.
Following the practice it has developed through its case law dealing with this issue, the Tribunal will hence dismiss this objection to receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3298, under 16, or 3616, under 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298, 3616
Keywords:
formal requirements; legal brief; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3924
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the modification of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3923
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Chair of the Appeal Board to dismiss as time-barred his internal appeal against the non-confirmation of his appointment and his separation while on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3906
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3905
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3887
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO raises the question of the receivability of the present complaint, noting that the complainant insists on impugning the President’s decision of 6 September 2013 instead of the actual final decision of 21 November 2013. The Tribunal finds that as the complainant filed a request for review of the 6 September decision in accordance with Article 109 of the Service Regulations and has received the final decision of 21 November, which is included in the documentation provided in this case, it may treat the complaint as impugning the actual final decision of 21 November 2013.The complaint is therefore receivable.
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3873
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation for various injuries that WHO allegedly caused him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3869
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3861
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal points out that the term “decision” means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 3141, under 21). Having examined the two aforementioned emails, one containing a suggestion to the complainant and the other informing her of guidelines applicable within the ICC, it is obvious that they do not constitute administrative decisions. Moreover, in Judgment 2644, under 8, the Tribunal explained that “[t]here are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action [...] as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]).However, where, [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, [...] it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2629, 2644, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Judgment 3828
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein her or his intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgment 3068, under 16, and the case law cited therein).
Since the complainant clearly expressed her intention to challenge her status as defined in the decision of 5 April 2012, which adversely affected her and which formed the subject of that complaint, the letter of 7 June 2013 must be regarded as an appeal within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law and as a complaint within the meaning of Article 91, paragraph 2, of the General Conditions of Employment. Eurocontrol was therefore right to treat it as such.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3068
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3761
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]n the context of determining the receivability of the complaints, it is an administrative decision of general application. In general, this type of decision is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However, there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights. In the present case, the impugned decision directly and adversely affects the complainants’ rights as it precludes the complainants’ important right to participate in the decision-making process […]. As the complaints satisfy the requirements of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
administrative decision; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3749
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of additional income tax paid by her husband.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative decision may take any form if its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation, as is the case here (see, in particular Judgments 2573, under 8, 2629, under 6, and 3141, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2573, 2629, 3141
Keywords:
administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3729
123rd Session, 2017
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which her appointment was terminated.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Had that point concerning receivability been raised in the internal appeal, it may have had prospects of success in these proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1653, consideration 6, 3181, consideration 11, and 3577, considerations 8 and 9). But it was not raised in the internal appeal and, accordingly, cannot now be relied upon for the first time by the PCA in these proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2255, considerations 12 and 13, and 3160, consideration 14). Accordingly, the PCA’s contention concerning receivability is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2255, 3160, 3181, 3577
Keywords:
estoppel; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3698
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of the Audit Committee of the EPO Administrative Council.
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute 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 consequence, when “[t]he complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him”, his complaint must be held to be irreceivable (see Judgment 2952, under 3).
The Tribunal observes that the complainant does not allege any violation of the terms of his appointment or of staff regulations that are applicable to him. His case does not relate to his administrative status but rather to the organisation of the EPO, his employer, for which he is plainly not responsible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3686
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he case law is clear 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 before the Tribunal even if those
pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see Judgment 2571, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3674
122nd Session, 2016
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The objection to receivability based on the contention that the complaint was filed late cannot be accepted, since OTIF has not produced any evidence that would enable the Tribunal to establish that the complainant received the notification of 16 July 2013 before the date specified by him [...].
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3673
122nd Session, 2016
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract and the subsequent notification that her contract would not be extended to allow her to use her entitlements to certified sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3651
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment upon the expiry of his probationary period.
Considerations 5 and 6
Extract:
In Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6, the Tribunal reiterated that the time limits for internal appeal procedures serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The Tribunal relevantly rationalized this approach in the following terms: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary, otherwise the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions potentially adversely affecting the staff of international organisations would be put at risk. Flexibility about time limits should not intrude into the Tribunal’s decision-making even if it might be thought to be equitable or fair in a particular case to allow some flexibility. To do otherwise would “impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations” (see Judgment 2722, consideration 3). However, there are some exceptions to this general approach, which have been expressed in the Tribunal’s case law.
Additionally, however, Manual paragraph 331.3.31 provides that the Appeals Committee may consider an appeal that has been filed out of time to be receivable if it finds that the failure to abide by the time-limit was for a reason that was outside of the complainant’s control and the length of the delay in filing was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The complainant only states that his appeal was hampered because upon being separated from service, the FAO discontinued his email account and that this action delayed his preparation of the appeal. It is however noted that the FAO re-activated the complainant’s account a week later for thirty days. As the Appeals Committee found, this circumstance did not justify the late filing of the complainant’s appeal some two and a half months after his account was restored. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable, under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of appeal and has failed to submit his appeal to the Director-General within the prescribed time limit required by Staff Rule 303.1.311. The complaint will therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3648
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
WIPO’s argument that the Tribunal itself could have raised the issue of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action is of no avail. Indeed, although it is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, for example, Judgments 2567, under 6, 3139, under 3, and the case law cited therein), the Tribunal may only do so when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted. That is plainly not the case here, especially if one considers only the submissions as they stood before the surrejoinder was filed, which is how the issue must be approached here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2567, 3139
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage, and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160
Keywords:
estoppel; no cause of action; 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 >
|
