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 3646
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General not to allow him to proceed directly to the Tribunal in respect of his appeal against WIPO’s alleged failure to ensure that he was not subjected to intimidation, offensive behaviour or aggression.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Situations can arise where the Tribunal entertains and adjudicates on a complaint where the complainant has not exhausted internal remedies but it is apparent that the internal appeal process has paralysed the exercise of the complainant’s rights (see, for example, Judgment 2039, consideration 4). However, mere dissatisfaction with the composition of the internal appeal body does not found a right to bring a complaint directly to the Tribunal (see Judgment 3190, consideration 9). Nothing advanced by the complainant establishes that he is entitled to bring his grievance directly to the Tribunal. It is true that his grievance, in the most general sense, has subsisted for many years and has already twice been considered by the Tribunal. But that fact does not absolve the complainant from satisfying the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute that the impugned decision is a final decision and that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2039, 3190
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3619
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant’s arguments on these issues involved no more than a very brief tabulation of the conclusions of the IAC which was said to be “incorporated by reference” into the complainant’s legal brief and a “[maintenance] of [the] argumentation as presented during the internal appeal procedure”. This is an entirely unacceptable way of presenting an argument to the Tribunal and creates the real risk that the Tribunal will not appreciate the arguments advanced (see, for example, Judgments 3434, under 5, 2264, under 3(a) [Recte: (e)], and 3538, under 5). The Tribunal will thus focus on the conclusions of the IAC favourable to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264, 3434, 3538
Keywords:
judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3614
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; en banc review; invalidity; late appeal; plenary judgment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A significant part of the complainant’s submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPO’s internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to “clarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals Committee”. The complainant clearly misunderstands the role of the Tribunal. A request for interpretation of a normative text of an organization cannot be formulated as an independent claim before the Tribunal, outside the context of alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official. This claim is therefore clearly irreceivable."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; interpretation; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3551
120th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049
Keywords:
competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 3542
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657
Keywords:
candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3445
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that as the complaints were filed with the Tribunal beyond the ninety-day time limit provided in Article VII of the Statute, the complaints are time-barred and irreceivable."
Keywords:
late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3441
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]ll of these and other issues which call into question decisions that are made on the basis of the UNJSPF Regulations are irreceivable in the Tribunal as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under UNIDO Staff Regulation 12.2(b).
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; unjspf;
Judgment 3435
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complaints were irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainants assert that they did their utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal appeals procedure and that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, they were allowed to file directly with the Tribunal as the requirement to exhaust all internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralyzing the exercise of their rights. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even though the submission of the Organisation’s position paper was already delayed by the time the complainants
wrote to the IAC Chairman in December 2009, and the additional six months for the expected date of submission could be considered excessive depending on the circumstances, the complainants were involved in a dialogue with the Organisation which they abruptly ended by applying directly to the Tribunal upon receiving notice of the Organisation’s intent to submit its position paper in mid-2010. Having received confirmation of the Organisation’s intent to continue the internal appeal, the complainants should have either waited for the Organisation’s position paper of June to continue the internal appeal process, or should have requested a more immediate submission date. The Tribunal notes that, though the appeal process was delayed, it was active, and the complainants could have a reasonable expectation of receiving a final decision which they could then contest before the Tribunal if they found it necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider that the complainants had truly done their utmost to pursue their internal appeal and the complaints are considered premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable for failure to exhaust all means of internal redress. As they are irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal shall examine neither other issues of receivability, nor the merits of the complaints."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3434
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; pension; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal will not accept the complainants’ surprising argument that questions pertaining to the nature of the impugned decisions and their cause of action to request the setting aside thereof have no bearing on the receivability of their claims. According to the complainants, the only requirements regarding the receivability of complaints laid down by the Statute of the Tribunal are those mentioned in Article VII, namely that all internal means of redress must have been exhausted, that a final decision must have been taken and that the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal must have been respected. However, these rules concern only the procedural aspect of receivability. Receivability is also governed by Article II of the Statute, which, by defining the nature of disputes which the Tribunal has competence to hear ratione personae and ratione materiae, establishes further rules of receivability pertaining to the substantive aspect thereof. Thus a complaint will be receivable only if it is directed against a decision which is of a kind that may be challenged before the Tribunal and if it is filed by an official who shows a cause of action (see, among innumerable examples, Judgments 1756, under 5, 1786, under 5 and 6, 2379, under 5, or 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1786, 2379, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3427
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[I]t is observed that the Tribunal has, in certain circumstances, “deemed” that the internal means of resisting a decision have been exhausted. However, as the exhaustion of the internal means of resisting a decision is a statutorily mandated requirement of receivability, it is beyond the Tribunal’s competence to waive it.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal considered the same receivability argument in Judgment 3426, under 16, and rejected it for the following reasons:
“The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, ‘[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action’. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, 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’ (Judgment 3136, under 11).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136, 3426
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3426
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, 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” (Judgment 3136, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3418
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Before addressing the issues raised by the complainant in her brief, it is necessary to address a challenge by WIPO to the receivability of the complaint. [...] WIPO contends that the complaint is not receivable. It does so on a basis that is raised in other cases in this session and which has been raised in the past. The Tribunal’s response to the argument has been consistent. While the completed complaint form was filed on 13 April 2012, the brief was not filed until 17 July 2012. This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power to enable the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules. Article 14 of the Rules also appears to have been engaged. WIPO argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However, the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2) in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, considerations 1 and 2). Whether it is desirable for a Registrar to routinely use the power in this way is another question. WIPO’s challenge to receivability is rejected."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500
Keywords:
correction of complaint; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3399
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's claims were all irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3383
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant has never been an official of CERN and did not impugn a decision affecting his rights, his complaint is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3382
118th Session, 2014
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment 3381
118th Session, 2014
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As there was no meeting of minds between the parties concerning an appointment and the complainant did not become a staff member of IOM and, therefore, not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is clearly irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
appointment; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; official; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 3368
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s employment under short-term contracts was unlawful and that the Organisation failed to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] rejects the ILO’s contention that the complaint’s claim for the conversion of her short-term contract is receivable only to the extent that it relates to her last contract extension for the period from 1 January to 31 May 2010, but is otherwise time-barred. The ILO relies on Judgments 2708 and 2838 as authority for its submission that, in view of the six-month time limit for filing a grievance under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations, the grievance filed on 4 November 2010 is irreceivable as to extensions prior to that of 1 January to 31 May 2010. A similar argument was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3110, under 5. It is sufficient to note that, as earlier indicated, at the material time the complainant was employed under a single contract which was extended several times, and neither the extension of 1 January 2010 nor the decision to apply Rule 3.5 to her gave rise to a new, separate contract. The objection therefore fails."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 3110
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Contrary to the Organization’s assertion, the determination of the receivability of an internal appeal itself has no bearing on the receivability of a complaint filed with the Tribunal. The latter is governed by the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, a decision on receivability in an internal appeal is reviewable by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
late appeal; 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 >
|
