|
|
 |
|
|
Vexatious complaint (118, 662,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Vexatious complaint
Total judgments found: 33
< previous | 1, 2
Judgment 1399
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As the Tribunal acknowledged in Judgment 885, an organisation may find it awkward in all sorts of ways to defend its case when a complainant is stubbornly bent on indiscriminate exercise of the right of appeal. But the issues the present complainant has raised are not such that the Tribunal sees his complaint as any abuse of his right of appeal. That right is a safeguard for organisation and staff alike and the exercise of it is to be denied only in extreme and quite exceptional cases."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 885
Keywords:
organisation's interest; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1391
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant was subject to disciplinary action for statements, some of them before the Tribunal, which allegedly impaired the organisation's and the Tribunal's reputations. "Disciplinary action will be justified only if the staff member's conduct amounts to abuse of process or to a perversion of the right ofappeal. Such, for example, will be the case if his allegations 'are clearly wholly unfounded' (see Judgment 99 [...]); or if he appeals 'to the Tribunal for the purpose of lending force to the wild and unnecessarily wounding allegations [...] repeatedly made against the organisation' and has thereby 'entirely perverted from its proper purpose the right of appeal' to the Tribunal and has 'affronted the dignity of his organisation and of the Tribunal (see Judgment 96 [...]); or if his actions 'could neither have been directed to defending [his] freedom and rights, however widely interpreted, nor [...] make the slightest contribution to the disposal of the proceedings' (see Judgment 111 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 96, 99, 111
Keywords:
case law; conduct; criteria; disciplinary measure; organisation's reputation; right of appeal; vexatious complaint;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was subject to disciplinary action for having made statements, some of them before the Tribunal, which allegedly impaired the organisation's and the Tribunal's reputations. The Disciplinary Committee asked whether the punishment of offensive remarks "for which there is no clear justification supported by evidence" would infringe the complainant's rights. The Tribunal holds that "such a test laid an undue burden on the complainant in that if he was to avoid the risk of disciplinary action he must prove the truth of his allegations. No such burden should have been put on him. The mere failure to prove the truth of his allegations did not mean that he had either abused his freedom of speech or forfeited the immunity or privilege of judicial proceedings."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; criteria; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A litigant whose submissions contain language that is unacceptable, or ill-chosen, or damaging, or unseemly, does not thereby lose the immunity that attaches to statements made in judicial proceedings".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1204
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants were refused the grant of a promotion. The impugned decisions are set aside and the complainants sent back to CERN for proper determination of their entitlement to promotion. They are claiming awards of damages. But "they fail to show any particular injury. If they get promotion, that, and the financial consequences, will afford them sufficient redress. If they are not promoted they will not have suffered any injury unless the new decisions are again unlawful. For the time being there is no actual injury and they have no right to compensation."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; injury; lack of injury; promotion; refusal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not entertain the organisation's counterclaim to an award of costs against the complainant for abuse of process."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1100
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complaint is premature. The organisation claims an award of costs against the complainant. "In Judgment 885 the Tribunal addressed the issue of abuse of the right of appeal. It said that it was for the Tribunal itself to determine whether a complainant had abused that right and, if so, what ruling was fitting in the circumstances. In Judgment 1056, however, it held that such a ruling may not include an award of costs against the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 885
Keywords:
case law; costs; counterclaim; iloat; refusal; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1056
70th Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not entertain the Organization's counter-claim to an award of costs against the complainant of abuse of process."
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; refusal; tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 887
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Certainty of the position in law requires the complainant to state clearly what it is he wants. The Tribunal observes that in both his internal appeal and the present complaint, the complainant has failed to indicate the specific documents or type of document he wished to have included in his personal file. Nor has he made clear the reasons for his action. In the present state of the dossier, his complaint is an abuse of the right of appeal under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; elements; no cause of action; personal file; receivability of the complaint; vague claim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 885
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The interests of both justice and sound administration demand that the organisation endure litigation: it is not for the organisation but for the Tribunal itself to determine whether the complainant has abused his right of appeal and, if so, what ruling is fitting in the circumstances. [The organisation] may [...] submit that [the complainant] has abused the right of appeal and invite the Tribunal not just to dismiss his complaint but to declare it vexatious and, where appropriate, take any further action it thinks fit. For the foregoing reasons the Tribunal holds that it was wrong to impose the reprimand on the complainant and it must be quashed."
Keywords:
censure; competence; disciplinary measure; judicial review; organisation; right of appeal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 111
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant made use of statements in the proceedings before the Tribunal "as tracts designed to discredit [the organisation] and the Administrative Tribunal." His actions could not have been directed to defending his freedom and rights. They were undoubtedly related to "activities exercised by [him] as an official of the organisation; as such they constituted serious misconduct and were consequently such as to justify the legal application of a disciplinary sanction [...] the free choice of the sanction to be imposed was within the Director-General's discretion."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; duty of discretion; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 102
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The present complaint involves claims all of which "are unconnected with [the] complainant's professional interests and consist of wild assertions, and for this reason alone must be dismissed."
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 101
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgment 102, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 102
Keywords:
cause of action; no cause of action; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 97
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
Designated passages in the complainant's statement "are totally unnecessary to support the complaint and are merely insulting towards the [organisation]; the Tribunal must, therefore, order their deletion."
Keywords:
complaint; elements; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 96
16th Session, 1966
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's behaviour, in which he persisted over a period of several years in spite of warnings from the organisation and from the Tribunal, showed repeated infringements by him [...] of the Staff Regulations and was of a nature to throw public discredit on the organisation; it thus constituted serious misconduct under which [the applicable provision] was such as legally to justify his summary dismissal without notice."
Keywords:
conduct; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment; vexatious complaint; warning;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"By his repeated complaints against decisions which, in general, did not affect his rights as an official, by reverting on several occasions to allegations which the Tribunal had already dismissed, by applying to the Tribunal for the purpose of lending force to the wild and unnecessarily wounding allegations which he had repeatedly made against the organisation and the [national] authorities, [the complainant] has entirely perverted from its proper purpose the right of appeal to the Administrative Tribunal afforded to [...] officials [of the organisation] and has affronted the dignity of his organisation and of the Tribunal."
Keywords:
identical claims; right of appeal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
< previous | 1, 2
|
|
|
|
|
