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

Complainant (56, 55, 71, 73, 74, 673, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 643, 682, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 93, 534, 535, 659, 655, 704, 705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 758, 759, 760,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Complainant
Total judgments found: 175

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

  • Judgment 3041


    111th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
    "The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3026


    111th Session, 2011
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Failure on the part of the Organisation to give the complainant a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement prior to deciding not to renew his fixed-term contract for unsatisfactory performance.
    "It must be assumed that until 2006 the complainant's work was satisfactory as his contract was renewed from time to time, albeit that he was not subject to performance appraisal during the period he was employed on temporary assistance contracts."

    Keywords:

    appointment; complainant; contract; performance report; period; presumption; satisfactory service; short-term; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3023


    111th Session, 2011
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
    "[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; complainant; delay; internal appeal; moral damages; moral injury; reasonable time;



  • Judgment 3016


    111th Session, 2011
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant's claim for egregious delay is founded. More than four years passed from the start of the post classification exercise to when the final decision was made, and that is excessive."

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; decision; delay; late decision; post classification; reasonable time;



  • Judgment 3003


    111th Session, 2011
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension;



  • Judgment 2985


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    "The interveners [...] are [...] in a similar legal situation to that of the complainant. They must therefore be granted the benefit of the rights recognised by this judgment."

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; right; same;



  • Judgment 2915


    109th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is correct that a vested right cannot be divested without the consent of the person to whom it belongs. However, it does not follow that a corresponding condition or obligation - in this case, the condition or obligation to retire at 60 - depends on continuing consent. A condition once accepted or an obligation once entered [...] endures unless and until it is performed or the person is released from it either absolutely or by substitution of a different and mutually agreed condition or obligation."

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; effect; lack of consent; successive contracts; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 2913


    109th Session, 2010
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
    "The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party; same;



  • Judgment 2819


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant's dignity has been seriously injured, and consistently injured over a period of three and a half years, he has suffered no financial loss and his claims for compensation and for moral damages are excessive. [...] The complainant will be adequately compensated by an award of moral damages in the amount of 25,000 euros. There will be an award of costs of these proceedings and the internal appeal proceedings in the amount of 5,000 euros."

    Keywords:

    amount; complainant; costs; injury; lack of injury; material injury; moral damages; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2782


    106th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
    "It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
    Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560

    Keywords:

    adjustment; breach; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension. However, interest on arrears was paid only to the members of staff who had filed a complaint with the Tribunal; the complainant was not among them. He is consequently challenging the decision not to pay him interest on arrears.
    "(a) In the absence of any particular rule requiring the Organisation to pay interest on arrears to a staff member where a benefit due to that person is paid belatedly, such interest is not in principle due until the creditor - i.e. the staff member to whom the benefit is owed - has served notice on the Organisation to pay. This apparently harsh solution is justified because no particular formalities are required for the service of such notice, it being sufficient for the creditor to request payment of the amount due. [...]
    (b) However, this rule does not apply where the debt is one which falls due on a fixed date. In such a case the due date is equivalent to the service of notice (dies interpellat pro homine). The debtor owes interest on arrears as from that date, without any need for the creditor to establish that he or she has requested payment of the due sum. The same applies where the debt falls due periodically at a fixed date, as in the case of a salary.
    The salary adjustment at issue forms an integral part of the salary. Moreover, the salary, plus increments, is due on precise dates at the end of every month. In the instant case the payment of the staff member's salary, including the adjustment thereto, did not depend on a request from that person. The claim for interest on arrears is therefore well founded."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560

    Keywords:

    adjustment; amount; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; debt; delay; exception; execution of judgment; formal requirements; general principle; increase; insurance benefit; interest on damages; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; request by a party; retirement; salary;



  • Judgment 2730


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 2715


    104th Session, 2008
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he complaint incorrectly states that it seeks the setting aside of the 'Organization's decision of 5 July 2004' to end the complainant's employment contract, whereas the Secretary General's decision to that effect is in fact dated 10 August 2004, and 5 July 2004 is the date of the Administration Committee's opinion, which is not challengeable. However, the complainant's intention, which must be ascertained without taking into account this purely factual error, was plainly to challenge the Secretary General's decision of 10 August 2004."

    Keywords:

    complainant; impugned decision;



  • Judgment 2700


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant did not receive the Reports Board's recommendation, which constituted the basis of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. "The Tribunal considers that in the present case the complainant is entitled to see the Reports Board's recommendation, an essential document on which the Administration based its decision not to renew his contract. By withholding that document the Organization deprived the complainant of an item of evidence that was essential for the preparation of his defence and the Tribunal of a document enabling it to exercise its power of review.
    Accordingly there are grounds for ordering further submissions in order that the file may be supplemented with a copy of the Reports Board's recommendation, as requested by the complainant."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; complainant; complaint allowed; contract; disclosure of evidence; fixed-term; further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 2662


    103rd Session, 2007
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that there was a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. "Reliance on the Convention is misplaced as it is not applicable to international organisations. The complainant's rights are those derived from the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and from the general principles of law applicable to such organisations."

    Keywords:

    breach; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; enforcement; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; organisation; provision; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2636


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]he four persons with respect to whom the complainant seeks the imposition of sanctions have filed applications to intervene in these proceedings and, in the alternative, seek to have their applications treated as complaints. These applications must be refused. So far as concerns the applications to intervene, none of the applicants is in the same position in fact or law as the complainant (see Judgment 2237)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2237

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; disciplinary measure; intervention; refusal; request by a party; right; same;



  • Judgment 2632


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1712, under 10, recalling a firm precedent, 'there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant's position.'"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complainant; condition; consequence; effect; injury; period;



  • Judgment 2558


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

    Consideration 5 (b)

    Extract:

    The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."

    Keywords:

    breach; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2503


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The evidence on file shows that the complainant was never an official of Eurocontrol, and the only contracts he has produced are temporary contracts signed with a temporary employment agency [which supplied him to the defendant] and governed by French law. According to Article II of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials or such provisions of the Staff Regulations as are applicable to their case. Since the complainant is not an official of Eurocontrol, and cannot produce any employment contract signed with the latter, it follows, as the Agency rightly contends, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute of the ILOAT

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; contract; domestic law; iloat statute; international civil servant; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; successive contracts;



  • Judgment 2473


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
    Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint; complaint allowed; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2468


    99th Session, 2005
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that his immediate supervisor subjected him to moral harassment. "Undoubtedly, serious problems arose from the tensions between the complainant and his former colleague, who had become his supervisor, but the former's refusal to recognise the authority of the latter largely accounts for a situation which, however regrettable, did not constitute harassment."

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated. "It may be concluded from all the circumstances of the case that, even though the complainant's conduct towards his supervisor was not what might be expected of an international civil servant and would probably have justified preventive action on the part of the Organization, the reasons given to establish that the complainant's abilities and performance were unsatisfactory did not suffice to justify terminating his appointment for unsatisfactory services.
    The complainant's [...] claim for retroactive reinstatement, with all legal consequences, within the Organization's staff [is well founded]."

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; consequence; insubordination; international civil servant; organisation's duties; qualifications; reinstatement; right; supervisor; termination; unsatisfactory service; working relations;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 12.12.2019 ^ top