New claim (19, 647,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New claim
Total judgments found: 101
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In his rejoinder, the complainant asks for the case to be sent back to the Organization so that the internal complaints procedure for harassment can be initiated.
However, the Tribunal considers that this constitutes a new claim, which a complainant is not permitted to enter in her or his rejoinder (see, in particular, Judgments 4396, consideration 7, 4092, consideration 10, and 3086, consideration 3(d)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4092, 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for the “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the unlawful abolishment of [her] position […]”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords:
new claim;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for an “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the undue delay of the [Joint Appeals Board] process”. This claim is irreceivable since it is contained only in the complainant’s rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 7), whilst the complainant could, and should, have submitted it in her complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims the award of material and moral damages for “the undue delay of the payment of overtime”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see […] Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4703
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of the final investigation report.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The IAEA submits that the complainant’s […] ground concerning institutional harassment is a new claim that should have been raised internally and is therefore irreceivable. The complainant argues that his allegation of institutional harassment is a new plea that does not extend the scope of the claims already submitted during the internal appeal process. The Tribunal notes that the complainant has put forward a plethora of allegations of institutional harassment in his previous complaints before the Tribunal. The complainant’s allegation of institutional harassment is obviously a new claim and is not a new plea that merely serves to strengthen the legal argument by providing an additional reason to support the claim. Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4522, consideration 3, 4467, consideration 5, and 3945, consideration 4). As the complainant did not raise the issue of institutional harassment in his request for review […], nor in his appeal to the JAB, his claim is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3945, 4467, 4522
Keywords:
institutional harassment; new claim;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he material damages claimed by the complainant represent the difference between the partial remuneration that he received and that which he would have received if his remuneration had not been reduced. However, no compensation claim of this sort was made in his internal complaint of 10 July 2018 or addressed in the subsequent opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes of 29 March 2019 or in the impugned decision of 9 May 2019.
It follows that this further claim is also irreceivable, since it was never raised in the context of the complainant’s internal appeal procedures, in addition to being unfounded, since the complainant was paid 50 per cent of his remuneration precisely as he himself had requested (see, by way of a comparable precedent, Judgment 4547, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4547
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As for the excessive length of the internal appeals procedure, on which the complainant focuses in her rejoinder and her additional submissions, the Tribunal considersit appropriate, first of all, to dismiss the Organization’s argument that this claim is irreceivable asit was only made in the context of the rejoinder. The Tribunal notes that, in her complaint, the complainant criticised the overall period of seven years that elapsed between her initial request for an updated job description and the final decision of the Director-General of 7 August 2019 following the Appeals Board’s report. As the period referred to includes the duration of the internal appeals procedure, it can be assumed that the complainant, in so doing, intended to challenge that duration as part of her damages claim for moral injury sustained as a result of the unreasonable time taken to reach a decision on her request.
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4665
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was reclassified retrospectively, claims compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered and requests that his resignation be redefined as a dismissal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers [...] that, as the Organization contends, the complainant raises new claims in his rejoinder which have not been made previously. According to the Tribunal’s case law, such claims are irreceivable (see, in particular, Judgments 4487, consideration 15, and 4396, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4487
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4659
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant seeks payment of the “termination indemnity”, that is to say the indemnity on termination of appointment provided for in Staff Rule 11.3.1. However, as the Organization correctly states, this claim was raised for the first time in the rejoinder and is thus irreceivable (see Judgments 4487, consideration 15, 4396, consideration 7, 4221, consideration 7, and 4092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092, 4221, 4396, 4487
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its case law which states that, while a complainant may not submit claims for the first time to the Tribunal if they were not made in the internal appeal procedure, she or he may enter new pleas (see Judgments 4009, under 10, and 4449, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009, 4449
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes 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 (see, for example, Judgments 4009, considerations 10 and 14, and 4066, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009, 4066
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4489
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of moral damages paid to her by the EPO for the decision not to finalise her two performance management reports for 2011 and part of 2012.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the internal appeal, the complainant sought moral damages but did not seek material damages. Accordingly, her claim for material damages in these proceedings in the Tribunal is not receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3967, consideration 5, and also Judgment 4304, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967, 4304
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; new claim;
Judgment 4487
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that the arrears owed to him in respect of his invalidity allowance, related benefits and unused leave following a retroactive modification of the monthly gross salary scales in December 2012 were not paid to him until January 2013.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Two claims (punitive damages and remitting the case to the German criminal prosecution authorities) were raised in the rejoinder. This is impermissible (see Judgments 4092, consideration 10, 4221, consideration 7, and 4396, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092, 4221, 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The EPO raises, as a threshold issue, whether the complaint is receivable. It can do so notwithstanding that receivability was not raised in the internal appeal, a point relied upon by the complainant in arguing that it cannot be raised now. That is because the issue raised by the EPO is whether the requirements of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal are met. Necessarily that issue can only arise when a complainant seeks to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It cannot arise at an earlier time and could not, in any meaningful way, be raised and determined in the internal appeal. In any event, the Tribunal can address the question of its own motion (Judgment 4317, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4317
Keywords:
estoppel; exception; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4475
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the handling of her grievance complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
With regard to the other three heads, the issues raised by the ICC pertain either to the receivability of claims before the Tribunal or to the competence of the Tribunal, thus they could not have been raised by the ICC before the filing of the complaint.
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4396
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, in particular, Judgment 3086, under 3(d), as well as Judgment 4092, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4092
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in her or his complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, or 2996, consideration 6). In the present case, the complainant has, in her rejoinder, presented a claim for compensation for “financial loss”, which did not appear in the same form in her complaint. While the IOC misunderstands the implications of this rule, laid down in case law, when it argues in its surrejoinder that the irreceivability in question extends to any submission or allegation made for the first time in the rejoinder, this new claim will be dismissed at the outset for this reason.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4305
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment due to the abolition of his post and the failure to reassign him to another suitable vacant position.
Consideration 13
Extract:
WHO challenges the receivability of the complainant’s allegations concerning some of his applications made both during and after the expiry of the reassignment period, on the ground that the selection processes for those positions are not relevant to the impugned decision. However, the complainant is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment (see Judgment 4036, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4036
Keywords:
new claim; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;
Judgment 4304
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General to cancel the “Falls Below Expectations” overall rating in her 2014 performance appraisal report and to restore her entitlements as in the case of satisfactory performance, but not to award her damages or costs.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In the internal appeal, the complainant did not seek material damages. However, in the present complaint, in addition to other redress, the complainant seeks material damages for the serious financial injury she sustained caused by the administration of her case which she alleges resulted in the termination of her contract for health reasons and the shortening of her career rather than obtaining a lateral transfer as recommended by the HBA. The complainant’s claims regarding the termination of her contract and consequences of the termination are beyond the scope of the present case. Additionally, the complainant has not established any loss due to the mismanagement of the 2014 performance evaluation for which she would be entitled to an award of material damages.
Keywords:
material damages; new claim;
Judgment 4293
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
UNIDO submits that the complainant’s challenge to the decision to advertise the P-2 post externally is irreceivable. It argues that that decision was a separate and distinct decision which the complainant should have appealed at the time that the vacancy was announced. This argument is unsustainable. The Tribunal stated, in consideration 17 of Judgment 4008, that, ordinarily, a vacancy announcement is neither a final administrative decision nor a decision which adversely affects an individual staff member. The complainant therefore properly contested the vacancy announcement at the time that he did.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008
Keywords:
administrative decision; new claim; vacancy notice;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
UNIDO submits that the “claim” for the production of documents relating to the recruitment decision is irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, because the complainant did not request the documents in the course of his internal appeal. UNIDO states that, moreover, he had not sought review of the administrative decision which rejected his request. UNIDO observes that under Staff Rule 112.02(a) a serving or former staff member who wishes to appeal an administrative decision shall request a review of the decision within 60 days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the decision in writing.
However, a request for the production of documents is not a claim. It is concerned with access to evidence. Receivability is therefore not at issue. Moreover, the Tribunal has stated the basic applicable principles concerning access to documents in consideration 5 of Judgment 4023, as follows:
“According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272, 4023
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; new claim;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
That issue is not receivable as it was not raised in the internal appeal.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4280
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Despite having impugned the [...] decision, which exclusively addressed the issue of his request for the payment of a monthly retirement pension, the complainant devoted the majority of his complaint ostensibly to challenging his non-reinstatement. The Tribunal finds that these additional claims are also irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as he did not challenge, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, any of the decisions not to reinstate him.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
