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

Reply (169, 170, 171,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Reply
Total judgments found: 34

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4063


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]n accordance with Article 8(2)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, a defendant organization before the Tribunal is only required to provide a translation into the language chosen for the proceedings by the complainant for ďany text which is not in English or FrenchĒ. Given that, in this case, the documents in question are drafted in English, UNESCO did not have to provide a French version thereof. In addition, the fact that excerpts from applicable texts and case law were cited in English in the defendant Organizationís submissions does not warrant these items being disregarded. It follows that this plea must be rejected.

    Keywords:

    reply;



  • 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 6

    Extract:

    A defendant organisation in proceedings before the Tribunal should not ordinarily be permitted to maintain a factual and legal position which is diametrically opposite to the position earlier accepted to be the case and foundational to the impugned decision which the organisation is defending, unless it involves a concession, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, favourable to the complainant.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; reply;



  • Judgment 3829


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrolís refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that [the Organisation]ís defence is ďaudacious and vexatiousĒ. On this basis, she asks that the Organisation be ordered to pay her damages [...]. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the Organisationís pleadings do not exceed the boundaries of the freedom of expression that the parties must be accorded during legal proceedings.

    Keywords:

    reply;



  • 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 Eurocontrolís 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 8

    Extract:

    In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that [the Organisation]ís defence is ďaudacious and vexatiousĒ. On this basis, she asks that the Organisation be ordered to pay her damages [...]. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the Organisationís pleadings do not exceed the boundaries of the freedom of expression that the parties must be accorded during legal proceedings.

    Keywords:

    reply;



  • Judgment 3755


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The resultant flaw in the internal appeal procedure [non-disclosure of evidence] was not remedied in any way by the fact that the Organization produced the report in question with its reply before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; evidence; reply;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    In his rejoinder the complainant disputes the receivability of the Organizationís reply on the grounds that it mentions neither the name nor the function of ďany representative of the defendant organisationĒ. This criticism is irrelevant. Although it is true that neither the reply nor the surrejoinder provides any indication of the identity or function of its author, WHO has explained that its submissions came from the Legal Counsel ad interim. This satisfies the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Tribunalís Rules.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Rules

    Keywords:

    reply;



  • 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 2

    Extract:

    [T]he complainantís objection to the receivability of WIPOís surrejoinder is unfounded. It should be noted that the date of filing of complaints and briefs with the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, in particular, Judgment 3566, under 3). In this case, the file contains a delivery receipt showing that the surrejoinder was deposited at the International Labour Office, where the Tribunal is based, on 9 February 2015. As the defendant organisation thus sent its surrejoinder on the date at the latest, that is, within the prescribed time limit, which ended that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566

    Keywords:

    reply; time bar;



  • 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 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal first observes that the complainantís objection to the receivability of WIPOís reply is unfounded. It should be noted that the date of filing of complaints and briefs with the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, in particular, Judgment 3566, under 3). In this case, the file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, where the Tribunal is based, on 24 June 2014. As the defendant organisation thus sent its reply on that date at the latest, that is, before the time limit expired that same evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566

    Keywords:

    reply; time limit;



  • 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]ís 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 3160


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255

    Keywords:

    estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 6

    Extract:

    "Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
    [T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; international civil servant; judicial review; misuse of authority; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; same; settlement out of court;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A] claim may be made and pursued against an organisation if its conduct in proceedings before an internal appeals body or this Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process or a perversion of the right of reply."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; iloat; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation; procedural flaw; procedure; reply; right;



  • 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 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4 (a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."

    Keywords:

    competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probation; reply; work appraisal;



  • 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 2373


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    After the decision not to renew his contract the complainant was placed on special leave with full pay until the end of the contract and his access to the building was withdrawn. When he went to the OPCW's premises in order to hand in his request for review, he was escorted at all times by a security officer. The complainant considered this treatment to be an affront to his dignity. "Without in any way denying that the OPCW, like many other international organisations, must be vigilant about matters of internal security, the Tribunal notes that neither in the impugned decision nor in its reply does the Organisation give any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat the complainant in such a humiliating manner. Except in the most urgent cases, the requirements of security can almost always be fully met while still respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. This is especially so where [...] there is no breach of discipline involved and the person concerned has for many years occupied a position of trust to the Organisation's apparent complete satisfaction. [...] The Tribunal assesses [the moral] damages at 10,000 euros [...]."

    Keywords:

    assignment; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; grounds; injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's duties; reply; respect for dignity; right; salary; satisfactory service; special leave;



  • 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 2190


    94th Session, 2003
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2172


    94th Session, 2003
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 20 and 21

    Extract:

    The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision; different appraisals; extension; mistake of fact; performance report; period; post; probation; procedural flaw; procedure; reply; supervisor; transfer; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2136


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 499

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;



  • Judgment 1878


    87th Session, 1999
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    "It is not acceptable that the organization, in defending this complaint, disclaims all responsibility for any alleged shortcomings of the Appeals Board."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure; reply;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 16.07.2019 ^ top