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: 714

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 | next >

  • Judgment 4494


    133rd Session, 2022
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant considers that UNESCO failed to take a decision within sixty days on his claim.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s claim has been addressed by the Assistant Director-General and forwarded to the competent services.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4486


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.

    Keywords:

    competence; internal appeals body; member of an internal body; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4485


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Acting in his capacity as a staff representative, the complainant challenges the decision to assign different duties and responsibilities to a Principal Director without a competitive selection process.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The EPO notes that the complainant filed the present complaint in his capacity as a staff representative, but explicitly states that it does not challenge the receivability of the complaint. In view of the position of the EPO and the fact that, ultimately, the complaint is to be dismissed, the Tribunal will not, itself, examine the receivability of the complaint. However, this should not be taken as a tacit acceptance by the Tribunal that, in a similar case in the future, the complaint will be treated, without question, as receivable.

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • 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;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal holds that the complaint is irreceivable, as the impugned decision is not a final one. Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. The Tribunal’s case law distinguishes between final decisions and other procedural steps leading to a final decision. Ordinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final one. They may not be attacked directly before the Tribunal, but they may be impugned as part of a challenge to the final decision (see, for example, Judgments 2366, consideration 16, 3433, consideration 9, 3512, consideration 3, 3860, considerations 5 and 6, 3958, consideration 15, and 3961, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512, 3860, 3958, 3961

    Keywords:

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

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal shall first address the issues of receivability raised by the ICC. The complainant objects that these issues were not raised by the defendant in the internal appeal proceedings, thus they fall outside the competence of the Tribunal. This objection is correct only with regard to the fourth head of the receivability challenge, related to the settlement agreement. Indeed the ICC had the possibility to raise that issue during the internal proceedings, and did not, therefore it cannot raise it now before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3160, consideration 14, and 3729, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3729

    Keywords:

    estoppel; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4466


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a first formal written warning of unsatisfactory performance and to initiate the procedure for addressing unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In consideration 8 of Judgment 3967 the Tribunal held that the warning letter issued in that case (which was similar to that issued to the complainant in the present case) was not an act that could be challenged before the Tribunal as it is merely a step in the process that culminates in a staff report. Based on this case law, the complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967

    Keywords:

    internal remedies not exhausted; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure; warning;



  • Judgment 4449


    133rd Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the complainant advances several new pleas that were not raised in the internal proceedings. According to the Tribunal’s case law, “a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas [...] before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body” (see, for example, Judgment 4009, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009

    Keywords:

    new plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4447


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Olive Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] asks the Tribunal to set aside the report of the Joint Committee on various bases. This request is however irreceivable as the Joint Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions (see, for example, Judgment 4392, consideration 5). The Tribunal will merely determine whether, on the basis of the complainant’s allegations, the procedure of the Joint Committee was flawed, which may have had an impact on the impugned decision and warrant its setting aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4392

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4446


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Human Resources Department’s decision to close her complaint reporting “[c]oncerns leading to [her] decision to not renew [her] contract” and bullying.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4445


    133rd Session, 2022
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the procedure regarding his harassment complaint against his former supervisor.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Appeals Committee concluded that the complainant’s “claims” related to the subject PACE reports were irreceivable because they were the subject of two other internal appeals. The Appeals Committee expressly did not consider any aspect related to those reports which the complainant raised in his internal appeal (subsequently resolved in Judgments 3879 and 4229). This was wrong because the complainant was not seeking to relitigate the issues raised in those complaints in which he challenged the lawfulness of those PACE reports. In the present complaint his central allegation is, in effect, that specific actions by his supervisor during the course of those appraisal procedures support his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority. It is therefore clear that the complainant’s allegations insofar as they may concern those matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close his harassment complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4241, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3879, 4229, 4241

    Keywords:

    harassment; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4444


    133rd Session, 2022
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The defendant] argues that any claim for material damages that may be inferred from the complaint is irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, because the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress available to him regarding such a claim. The Tribunal however observes that, although the complainant did not request material damages in his appeal […] to the Executive Director against the termination decision, he requested material damages in his appeal to the Appeals Committee [….] Moreover, as the Appeals Committee found the complainant’s internal appeal receivable ratione materiae, which would have included the claim for material damages, and the final decision accepted the recommendations of the Committee, the Organization is precluded from raising this plea before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    estoppel; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4430


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In the absence of any implementing decision, the question that then arises is whether, in relation to the complainants, there has been an immediate and adverse effect on individual rights. The Tribunal is satisfied there has been. Circular No. 347 did have an immediate and adverse effect on the complainants’ right to strike. It is immaterial that they did not go on strike in June 2013 or that circumstances had not arisen where one or a number of the provisions of the Circular operated on or applied to conduct of the complainants. The effect was immediate because, at the date of promulgation of the Circular, it legally constrained future exercise of the right to strike or imposed burdens to the same effect. The complaints are receivable.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; general decision; receivability of the complaint; right to strike; strike;



  • Judgment 4397


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The Organisation challenges the receivability of the complaint insofar as the “reassignment” was based on the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna. […]
    The complaint is receivable. The fact that the EPO was attempting to satisfy the complainant’s wish to remain in Vienna does not prevent her from contesting the resulting decision by which she was transferred to the specific post […].

    Keywords:

    cause of action; 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 11

    Extract:

    [S]ubstantiation or non-substantiation of a claim goes to the merits of the claim. It is not a function of receivability or irreceivability.

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4374


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to abolish their posts and terminate their appointments.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The ICC requested, and was authorized by the President of the Tribunal, to file a single reply and surrejoinder in relation to all complaints, and to confine its written submissions to the issue of receivability. The complainants assert that “[b]y limiting its submissions to receivability aspects, the Defendant Organisation elected not to defend itself on the merits” and that “[t]he direct and unavoidable consequence of the Defendant Organisation’s line of argumentation in the present case[s] is that, once satisfied that the present case[s] [are] receivable, the Tribunal shall determine on the merits of the present case[s] in light of the sole submissions made by the [c]omplainant[s], without need to reopen the written submissions”. The Tribunal notes that “[e]ven when the President has granted permission to reply only on receivability the Tribunal may still declare a complaint receivable and order further pleadings on the merits, as indeed it did in Judgment 852” (see Judgment 935, consideration 4). As the Tribunal has authorized the pleadings to be confined to the issue of receivability, this is the only issue that will be determined in the present judgment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 852, 935

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; reply confined to receivability;



  • Judgment 4365


    131st Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits that by refusing UNESCO’s request that it be allowed to confine its reply to the issue of the receivability of the complaint, the President of the Tribunal had necessarily dismissed UNESCO’s objection to receivability.
    The complainant is mistaken. The President’s decision, issued in the exercise of his general power to direct the conduct of the proceedings, in no way prejudged the receivability of the complaint and had no bearing on the complainant’s duty to exhaust internal remedies.

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4356


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4337


    131st Session, 2021
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her requests for reinstatement.

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute states that the “Tribunal shall [...] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3426, consideration 16:
    “Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint ‘must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations’ [...]” (Citation omitted.)
    As the Tribunal stated recently in Judgment 4317, consideration 3, “[i]f [a] complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint”.
    In her submissions, the complainant did not identify any right to reinstatement accruing from her former employment. Indeed, an official who resigns does not have the right to be later reinstated. As well, she did not allege that the rejection of her request for reinstatement violated any terms of her former employment. The fact that she contrived and received a final decision from the Organization rejecting her unfounded request is not sufficient to make her complaint receivable before the Tribunal. As the complaint does not disclose a cause of action as required in Article II of the Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint and it will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 4317

    Keywords:

    cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4334


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the implicit decision rejecting her appeal against the decision to modify her terms of assignment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Although the Organization did not address the receivability of the complaint in its pleadings, the Tribunal must consider whether the complaint is receivable in accordance with Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4317


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board, challenges the decision not to allow a staff member holding a fixed-term contract to compete for a permanent post.

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that the present case raises two connected threshold issues which need to be resolved: a) whether the complainant’s cause of action can be considered by the Tribunal even though this issue has not been raised by the parties; b) if the answer is yes, whether the complainant has the requisite standing to bring this complaint.
    The Tribunal’s answer is affirmative to the first question and negative to the second one.
    The Tribunal must, in this case, raise the preliminary issue of the complainant’s cause of action of its own motion, because the existence of a cause of action is a necessary pre-condition for the Tribunal’s competence. If the complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The Tribunal’s case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability (see Judgments 3426, consideration 16, 3428, consideration 11, 3642, consideration 11, 3648, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3426, 3428, 3642, 3648

    Keywords:

    cause of action; 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 | next >


 
Last updated: 18.05.2022 ^ top