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

Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 770

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >

  • Judgment 4811


    137th Session, 2024
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, widow and successor of a former consultant for the FAO, who died while on official travel on the Organization’s behalf, impugns the Director-General’s decision dismissing her internal appeal against the decision informing her that the incident leading to her husband’s death had not been recognised as attributable to the performance of official duties and that she therefore was not entitled to claim compensation.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal entirely agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Appeals Committee, which the Director-General followed in the impugned decision, and recalls that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations (see, for example, Judgments 4673, consideration 13, 4374, consideration 8, 4184, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
    According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8). As the complainant’s appeal of 23 July 2021 was lodged late, the present complaint is clearly irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4374, 4655, 4673

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4809


    137th Session, 2024
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    It is true that the contracts in question did not themselves set any time limit for submitting an appeal in their connection. However, under the Tribunal’s case law, since the complainant intended to obtain recognition as an official, he ought to have lodged his grievance within the time limit applicable to any ILO official under Article 13.2(1) of the Staff Regulations, that is within six months of the treatment complained of (see Judgments 2888, consideration 8, 2838, considerations 4 to 6, and 2708, considerations 6 to 8). Admittedly, it would in practice have been awkward for the complainant to dispute the lawfulness of the initial contracts in question because he might have jeopardised further employment by the Organization and it would have been difficult for him to prove at the outset that, as he submits, he was engaged in ongoing duties. But these considerations do not hold good for subsequent contracts, and they ought to have been challenged at the latest within six months of their respective expiry dates. As has been said, the complainant – who had never requested that his employment relationship be redefined before it was ended – did not submit his grievance until 14 February 2007. The evidence shows that, at that date, the only contracts that could still be challenged within the prescribed time limit were an external collaboration contract for DIALOGUE between 6 November and 15 December 2006 and the last contract of this type, granted to the complainant at the end of the preceding contract for employment in the same department and which ended on 8 January 2007.
    Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that the complainant’s grievance was out of time insofar as it sought the redefinition of all the other contracts renders his complaint irreceivable to the same extent for failure to exhaust the applicable internal means of redress, since they cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4159, consideration 11, and 2888, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 2888, 4159, 4655

    Keywords:

    internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4807


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the report of the Medical Committee which extended her sick leave until 31 May 2016 and concluded that she was not suffering from invalidity.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, the Medical Committee’s opinion is not an administrative decision of the type that can be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process of reaching the final decision of the Administration. In Judgment 4118, consideration 2, the Tribunal clarified the principle regarding a complaint directed against the Medical Committee’s report:
    “With respect to the claims directed against the ‘decision’ of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007, the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such, cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office of 12 July 2007. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee of 21 June 2007.”
    […] [I]n the instant case, the only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision endorsing the Medical Committee’s opinion, contained in the 23 June 2014 letter from the Head of Department, Human Resources […] Expert Services, and not the Medical Committee’s opinion of 2 June 2014 or its letter of 11 June 2014, which the complainant erroneously considers to be the decision to be impugned.
    Therefore, the complaint is irreceivable […].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4118

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; invalidity; medical board; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4805


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests Circular No. 359 on the European Patent Office closure policy in 2015.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In his pleas before the Tribunal, the complainant makes no attempt to establish even an arguable case that this general decision either negatively impacted on him immediately or this was likely (Judgment 4119, consideration 4). In the absence of any argument which might persuade the Tribunal that this essential foundation of his case was even arguably correct, it is not open to the complainant to immediately develop lengthy arguments about the abolition of the [General Advisory Committee], the composition of the General Consultative Committee […] and whether consultation occurred or was necessary, and additionally challenge the internal appeal process. These last-mentioned matters are without purpose in the absence of any case concerning the lawfulness of the content of the Circular.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4119

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4801


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    No claim for material damages was made in the internal appeal and cannot now be made in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4304, consideration 8, and 2360, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360, 4304

    Keywords:

    internal remedies not exhausted; material damages; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4791


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4789


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4780


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
    As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
    “The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
    (See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4778


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was promoted from grade G.6 to grade P.3, challenges what he regards as the withdrawal of the decision to take his family allowance into account when determining his step in his new grade P.3.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; general service category; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4769


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress available to him as an official of the Organisation, contrary to the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal notes that, under the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint that could be challenged before the Tribunal arose when four months had passed from the date on which that internal complaint had been lodged, that is on 20 January 2020 (see Judgments 4696, consideration 2, 4695, consideration 2, and 4694, consideration 3). Consequently, by the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had indeed been exhausted. The Organisation’s objection to receivability in this respect must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4694, 4695, 4696

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; transfer;



  • Judgment 4768


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress available to him as an official of the Organisation, contrary to the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal notes that, under the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint that could be challenged before the Tribunal arose when four months had passed from the date on which that internal complaint had been lodged, that is on 21 February 2020 (see Judgments 4696, consideration 2, 4695, consideration 2, and 4694, consideration 3). Consequently, by the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had indeed been exhausted [...]. The Organisation’s objection to receivability in this respect must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4694, 4695, 4696

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4765


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4764


    137th Session, 2024
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    One matter arising from the complainant’s pleas […] concerns the decision to place her “on administrative leave” in March 2018 which she challenges in her complaint. The legality of the suspension decision was not challenged at the time. Any grievance about that decision should have been raised then (see, for example, Judgment 4461, consideration 5). The [Global Board of Appeal] concluded, correctly, that the claims in the internal appeal, insofar as they related to the suspension decision, were irreceivable as time-barred. Accordingly, insofar as the legality of the suspension decision is challenged in these proceedings, the challenge is irreceivable because the complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress, a matter the Tribunal can consider ex officio (see, for example, Judgment 4597, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4461, 4597

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4763


    137th Session, 2024
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illnesses be recognized as service-incurred.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4760


    137th Session, 2024
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to establish a medical board to examine the percentage of her permanent loss of function.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that Article and are not applicable where the official concerned can use internal remedies, in which case these must be exhausted, as required under paragraph 1, before a complaint may be filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4759


    137th Session, 2024
    Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Organisation challenges the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint on the grounds that the complainant is no longer a member of the OACPS’s staff. However, the Tribunal recalls that, pursuant to Article II, paragraph 6(a), of its Statute, access to the Tribunal is open to any official “even if her or his employment has ceased”.

    Keywords:

    former official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4758


    137th Session, 2024
    Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Secretary-General to end her employment and the breach of a promise of employment allegedly made to her.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that the issue of receivability of a complaint can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion, even if it has not been raised by the Organisation, when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted (see Judgment 3648, consideration 5; see also, to the same effect, Judgments 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, 1095, consideration 18, and 60, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1095, 2567, 3139, 3648

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4757


    137th Session, 2024
    Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and the breach of a promise to employ him.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that the issue of receivability of a complaint can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion, even if it has not been raised by the Organisation, when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted (see Judgment 3648, consideration 5; see also, to the same effect, Judgments 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, 1095, consideration 18, and 60, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1095, 2567, 3139, 3648

    Keywords:

    late filing; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4742


    137th Session, 2024
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the unfair treatment she considers she has suffered because her applications for several positions were rejected and she was not able to take part in training.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    Staff Regulation R VI 1.05 provides that appeals must be lodged within 60 days of notification of the disputed decision. The decisions on which the complainant’s claim for moral damages rests were therefore not submitted for an internal appeal within the time limit prescribed in the Staff Regulations.
    The Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the strict observance of applicable time limits when challenging an administrative decision. In Judgment 4673, consideration 12, it pointed out that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits (see also, in this regard, Judgment 4426, consideration 9, and Judgment 3758, considerations 10 and 11). According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the organisation, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, and 4517, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758, 4426, 4517, 4655, 4673

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that, in the present case, her complaint is limited to the Organisation’s “decision” to dismiss her claim for compensation for the moral injury it had caused her, pointing to the fact that she is not requesting that each of these individual selection decisions be set aside, which would render her claim receivable. The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, as it recalled in Judgment 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising the Organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in due time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4655

    Keywords:

    compensation; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4741


    137th Session, 2024
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal already recalled in Judgment 1734, consideration 3, with regard to Staff Rule VI 1.02, the very provision on which this dispute turns, emphasising the following:
    “VI 1.02 is quite plain. An internal appeal being ruled out, [the complainant] should have thought of filing a complaint against non-renewal. If he could not understand the article on his own, he was free to get advice.”
    It follows that, under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, since the complainant did not file her complaint within 90 days of the Organisation’s decision not to renew or extend her fixed-term contract, it is also irreceivable from that standpoint. The Tribunal has recalled on many occasions that, “[w]ith respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions” (see Judgments 4354, consideration 7, 3947, consideration 5, and 3559, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 3559, 3947, 4354

    Keywords:

    interpretation; interpretation of rules; non-renewal of contract; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal does not consider that the Director General’s reply [...] in fact conveyed an administrative decision since it merely informed the complainant of the possible means of redress. Her complaint against that decision is therefore irreceivable.
    Indeed, in Judgment 3847, [...] the Tribunal recalled the following [...]:
    "The letter of 20 August 2015 [...] merely informed her, correctly, that she had no right to seek to have the decision of 27 May 2015 appealed through the internal process. It did not convey any administrative decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3847

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top