ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Rejoinder (168, 792,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Rejoinder
Total judgments found: 31

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant presents, for the first time in his rejoinder, various claims for compensation for injuries that he considers he has suffered as a result of WHO’s conduct. However, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2996, consideration 6). This case law also applies to applications for execution (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6). These new claims must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996, 3207

    Keywords:

    application for execution; new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3921


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    While a complainant can add to her or his pleas in a rejoinder (but not add additional claims: see, for example, Judgment 2965, consideration 11), she or he runs the risk, as illustrated by this case, that a detailed and persuasive answer by a defendant organisation emerges in the surrejoinder to which no response is provided by the complainant beyond what had earlier been said in the rejoinder.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2965

    Keywords:

    new plea; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3725


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    UNIDO also notes that the complainant expanded the quantum of his claim for damages on his earlier claims and goes further in the rejoinder to introduce new claims of constructive dismissal. UNIDO submits that these are irreceivable and that the claims for damages should only be admitted to the extent of the earlier amounts which the complainant had sought.
    The Tribunal has consistently stated that a new claim which is raised in a rejoinder is irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    damages; new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3655


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that she was not promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted a new claim in her rejoinder. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in her or his original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 1768, under 5, or Judgment 2996, under 6). This new claim must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768, 2996

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant presented a new claim in his rejoinder [...]. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not in his or her rejoinder enter new claims not contained in his or her original submissions. Consequently, this new claim must in any case be dismissed (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3207

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3642


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainants address the question of receivability in their brief in a summary way but did not file a rejoinder dealing with the arguments of WIPO which are advanced in its reply.

    Keywords:

    rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3599


    121st Session, 2016
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC, impugns the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his complaint of harassment and discrimination.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "One [...] issue concerns the complainant’s rejoinder and, indirectly, the ICC’s surrejoinder. As noted [...], the complaint was filed on 13 October 2012 though it was subsequently corrected. The corrected complaint was filed on 24 May 2013. The ICC sought an extension of time in which to file its reply. This was granted and allowed the ICC to file its reply by 9 September 2013. It did so on that day. The complainant then had until 7 January 2014 to file his rejoinder. It was not filed until 13 January 2014 even though no extension of time had been granted. In the result, Article 9(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules had the legal effect of closing the pleadings on 7 January 2014. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not have regard to either the complainant’s rejoinder or the ICC’s surrejoinder save to the extent that the surrejoinder points to the fact that Article 9(2) had been engaged with the legal effect just discussed. The legal effect of this provision has been acted upon by the Tribunal on earlier occasions (see Judgments 211, consideration 1, 871, consideration 1, and 1141, considerations 20 and 21). In this matter the pleas are, in any event, sufficiently complete having regard to the complainant’s complaint form and legal brief together with the ICC’s reply."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 9 of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 211, 871, 1141

    Keywords:

    rejoinder; time bar;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; complaint allowed in part; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3151


    113th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s request for disclosure of the minutes of the hearing held concerning his three internal appeals, the Tribunal notes that it was raised for the first time in the rejoinder of the present proceedings. It is therefore irreceivable owing to a failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3034


    111th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in his or her rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in his or her original complaint (see Judgments 960, under 8, 1768, under 5, or 2996, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 2965


    110th Session, 2011
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[I]t is well established by the Tribunal's case law that a complainant may not, in his or her rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in his or her initial complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, under 8, or 1768, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768

    Keywords:

    new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 2955


    110th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The defendant asks the Tribunal to find that, especially in his rejoinder, the complainant engaged in 'completely gratuitous and misplaced [...] personal attacks'. It asks the Tribunal 'to censure such inappropriate language which detracts from the proper conduct of the proceedings'.
    The complainant, who is not assisted by a lawyer, has certainly used, in his complaint and rejoinder, blunt, colourful language which is not always very courteous. However, this wording does not exceed the bounds of what is acceptable in the context of legal proceedings."

    Keywords:

    rejoinder; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2598


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    "Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.

    In view of the above-mentioned circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.

    The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.

    The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2467


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2364


    97th Session, 2004
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Even though it is only the 'decision' of 10 March 2002 which he wishes to have set aside, the complainant refers to facts which arose after that date and adds in his rejoinder that, since the final decision was dated 23 July 2002, 'all grievances raised until that date can validly be taken into account' as part of his complaint. [...] With regard to the claims based on facts subsequent to 10 March 2002 and presented as grounds for appeal, since internal remedies were not exhausted (Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal), they must be deemed irreceivable. [...] Furthermore, the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; subsequent fact;



  • Judgment 2278


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant here is unrepresented. While the employment of a legally trained advisor is not a requirement and is no guarantee that a case will be well presented, the complainant's written pleadings are repetitive and contain largely unhelpful personal attacks on the member of the legal department who wrote the [Organisation]'s pleadings. They also contain unfounded and insulting comments about the EPO to which the latter properly objects. The Tribunal will limit the award of costs to 300 euros."

    Keywords:

    complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; costs; counsel; rejoinder; reply;



  • Judgment 2264


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(e)

    Extract:

    "In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL

    Keywords:

    complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure; rejoinder; reply; submissions;



  • Judgment 1433


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "As to his further claims in his rejoinder, the Tribunal observes that [...] the complainant neither challenged [a given claim] in his internal appeal [...] nor set out the claims in the form introducing the present complaint. He has made the claims in internal appeals which are still pending, and the claims are therefore at present irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; claim; complaint; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 1431


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The EPO described [the complainant's] complaint as "an abuse". But it does not ask the Tribunal to dismiss it as irreceivable for that reason. "The defendant is merely exercising the freedom of speech that any litigant must be allowed, short of resorting to offensive or insulting language." the complainant's claim to damages on that account fails.

    Keywords:

    criteria; freedom of speech; limits; new claim; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 1289


    75th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 16.07.2019 ^ top