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, 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: 694

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 | next >

  • 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;



  • 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 4285


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests what she considers to be UNESCO’s failure to respect her right to sick leave and medical privacy.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; sick leave;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has constantly held that a complaint will not be receivable “if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits” (see Judgment 3758, consideration 10, and the cases cited therein). As the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress regarding the ICTP Medical Service’s unsuccessful attempt to contact her physician, as required in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758

    Keywords:

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



  • 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 3

    Extract:

    The complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal which provides that “[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 complainant has not complied with the provisions of Articles 92(2) and 93 of the Staff Regulations, which require that an internal complaint against an act adversely affecting him be submitted to the Director General within three months, and that an appeal to the Tribunal be allowed only if the internal complaint filed pursuant to Article 92(2) has been rejected by express or implied decision. The letter of 26 April 2018 cannot be considered as a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Given that the internal means of redress are open to former Eurocontrol officials, the complainant should have requested a review of the decision by the Director General in accordance with the Staff Regulations.

    Keywords:

    internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4270


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, former officials of the World Food Programme whose employment was terminated as a result of the abolition of their posts, allege that they performed functions of a higher level than those of the posts they occupied, and claim compensation as well as reinstatement.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4269


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former EPO employee subjected to a “house ban”, seeks to impugn the decision to reject his requests for review.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4253


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It is true that the acts to which these three pleas relate can no longer, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal. However, inasmuch as the complainant maintains that they contributed to the harassment of which he considers himself to be the victim, the Tribunal must consider them. Indeed, harassment may involve a series of acts over time (see Judgments 2067, consideration 16, and 4034, consideration 16) and can be the result of the cumulative effect of several manifestations of conduct which, taken in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see, for example, Judgments 3485, consideration 6, and 3599, consideration 4), even if they were not challenged at the time when they occurred (see, for example, Judgment 3841, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 3485, 3599, 3841, 4034

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4243


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    WIPO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the grounds that it is directed against the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016 and not against the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016, which was the final decision. It is correct that in the complaint form the complainant only mentioned the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016, but in her written submissions she also seeks the setting aside of the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016.
    The challenge to the receivability of the complaint therefore fails.

    Keywords:

    claim; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4242


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to consider her claim for compensation for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; illness; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It argues that matters which are raised in this case are irreceivable insofar as they are covered by separate proceedings, including the complainant’s first complaint contesting the decision to reassign her as Senior Advisor, SIE, and other proceedings that are being pursued by the complainant independently of the challenge to the impugned decision to close her harassment complaint. However, it is relatively clear that the allegations insofar as they may concern those other matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close the harassment complaint and the complainant’s claims are cast no wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4236


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the results of the comprehensive local salary survey of 2013 for New Delhi, India.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    Both in their briefs and in the common rejoinder, the complainants refer to several earlier judgments of the Tribunal, namely Judgments 522, 663, 1618 and 2244 in support of the contention that the complaints are receivable. The Director-General relied on Judgment 3427 in his letter of 5 September 2017 and WHO relies in its pleas on Judgments 3736, 3921 and 3931 to argue the complaints are not receivable. Certainly the contemporary case law of the Tribunal supports the argument of WHO. It is sufficient to refer to Judgment 3931. The circumstances considered in that judgment align almost completely with the circumstances in this matter. The Tribunal said:
    “3. [...] The result of the impugned decision was that the salaries of staff who had been recruited before 1 November 2014 would be frozen and staff recruited after that date would receive salaries under a new salary scale. All the complainants were recruited before 1 November 2014. An aspect of the Organization’s argument is that the freezing of salaries results in the continued payment of pre-existing salaries with no injurious effect. However, an argument to the same effect in relation to a salary freeze was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3740, consideration 11. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis that, with one important qualification, is apt to apply in the present case. The qualification is this. In the case leading to Judgment 3740 the complainants lodged internal appeals against ‘the individual administrative decisions to apply to [each complainant] the statutory decision consisting of the revision of the remuneration of the [General Service category] Staff stationed in Rome’ as reflected in their respective February 2013 pay slips. Challenging a pay slip is an orthodox and accepted mechanism whereby an individual staff member can challenge a general decision as and when it is implemented in a way that affects or is likely to affect that individual staff member.
    4. In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: ‘[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).’”
    It bears repeating that the need to challenge an individual decision is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests but rather arises from the nature of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For example, in the present case, the relief the complainants seek includes setting aside the decision of the Director-General dated 5 September 2017 and rescinding the results of the 2013 salary survey as announced in the email of 7 October 2014. But orders of this type would apply to all staff affected by both the decision of 5 September 2017 and the email of 7 October 2014 irrespective of whether those staff agreed to or supported that outcome.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 522, 663, 1618, 2244, 3427, 3642, 3736, 3740, 3760, 3921, 3931

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;



  • Judgment 4226


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    It is difficult to say, in the face of this correspondence, that the complainant’s internal appeal had been paralysed. It is true that the appeal remained unaddressed by the Appeals Committee for a very long time though, in fact, a notice of hearing was issued on 4 April 2018 advising the complainant that the hearing would be held on 8 May 2018, which was later rescheduled to 22 May 2018 when it actually occurred. But the complainant was being told that his appeal would be heard and efforts were being made to ensure that that would happen. The appeal process was not paralysed and the complainant had not exhausted internal means of redress when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. By operation of Article VII, paragraph 1, his first complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute is clear in its terms. It provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless [...] the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. Article VII, paragraph 1, is satisfied when the complainant’s internal appeal has been paralysed (see, for example, Judgments 3685, consideration 6, 3302, consideration 4, and 2939, consideration 9) and the complainant has done her or his utmost to have the internal appeal resolved (see, for example, Judgments 2039, consideration 4, and 1674, consideration 6(b)). This case law simply identifies circumstances where the complainant can be treated as having exhausted internal means of redress, thus satisfying the provisions of the Article notwithstanding that, as a matter of fact, either an internal appeal body has not addressed the appeal or the executive head of the organisation has not done so at the time the complaint was filed with the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 2039, 2939, 3302, 3685

    Keywords:

    delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4225


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her requests to reclassify her post and to grant her a special post allowance at grade P-3.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; 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 | next >


 
Last updated: 20.04.2021 ^ top