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: 750

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 | next >

• Judgment 4727

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant se plaint d’un prétendu manque d’assistance de l’OEB dans le cadre de ses démarches en vue d’obtenir des cartes d’identité corrigées pour ses enfants.

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  [L]a question de la prétendue absence de préjudice subi par l’intéressé se rapporte en réalité au bien-fondé de la requête, et non à sa recevabilité, et la fin de non-recevoir ainsi soulevée ne peut qu’être écartée. Un requérant justifie en effet, à l’évidence, d’un intérêt à agir pour demander la condamnation d’une organisation à l’indemniser d’un préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi en raison d’une faute de celle-ci.
  Selon un principe général du droit dont le Tribunal fait application dans sa jurisprudence, une demande de réparation ne peut être accueillie que si le requérant établit l’existence d’une faute, celle d’un préjudice subi et celle d’un lien de causalité entre la faute et le préjudice en question (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4156, au considérant 5, 3778, au considérant 4, 3507, aux considérants 14 et 15, 2471, au considérant 5, et 1942, au considérant 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3507, 3778, 4156
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; misconduct; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4726

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is 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 which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
  

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4725

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is 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 which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
  

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4721

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is 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 which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
  

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4713

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is 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 which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
  

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4707

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  CERN does not contest that the complainant has personal standing to maintain his complaint. It accepts that the complainant has standing “before the Tribunal in respect of administrative decisions adversely affecting [his] conditions of association” and it refers to Judgment 1166. However, what it does contest concerns the subject matter of the complaint as it is “not related to the Complainant’s conditions of association deriving from his contract or from” the Staff Rules and Regulations (SRR). Part of CERN’s argument in its reply is that payment of subsistence allowances which are the subject of the ceiling, do not derive from the SRR or an appealable decision of the Director-General of CERN (appealable under Article S VI 1.01 of the SRR), but rather are decided upon by an external entity as the employer of the MPA concerned. The pleas on this topic continue in the rejoinder, surrejoinder, further submissions of the complainant and final comments by CERN. Part of the responsive argument of the complainant is that CERN had not provided any proof that the payments of the subsistence allowance of the complainant had been “decided upon by an external entity”.
  The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, generally, a party making an allegation bears the burden of proving it (unless, of course, it is not contested). This approach has relevance in cases where a defendant organization challenges the receivability of a complaint and that challenge is based on a fact or facts bearing upon receivability. Cases have arisen where such challenges have failed because the defendant organization has not proved a fact underpinning the contention that the complaint was not receivable (see, for example, Judgments 3034, consideration 13, and 2494, consideration 4). If a distinction is drawn between the general arrangement whereby CERN made payments on behalf of third parties which is principally a matter of process, and an alteration, particularly a material one, to the amount of any such payment based on a decision of the third party communicated to CERN then proof of that decision may be required to sustain the objection to receivability of the type advanced by CERN. It is not at all obvious, even implicitly, from the material relied upon by CERN that the alteration, by way of reduction, of the subsistence allowance commencing in 2020 payable to the complainant, was ever considered by the complainant’s Home Institution, an American university. The absence of evidence leaves open the possibility that, as a matter of fact, the reduction in the payment of the subsistence allowance to the complainant was a direct result of the implementation of the general decision to place a ceiling of ordinarily 5,163 Swiss francs on subsistence payments which did not involve any decision-making or instructions by or from the complainant’s Home Institution. But it is unnecessary to explore this issue any further as, for reasons which follow, the complaint should be dismissed on its merits.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2494, 3034
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; cause of action; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4697

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision du Directeur général de lui infliger la sanction disciplinaire de rétrogradation.

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  Le Tribunal relève que, en vertu de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, une décision implicite de rejet de la réclamation de l’intéressé, susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal, était née à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre mois à compter de l’introduction de cette réclamation, soit le 29 septembre 2020. Dès lors, à la date du 17 décembre 2020 où le requérant a introduit sa requête, les voies de recours interne dont il disposait avaient bien été épuisées. La requête est ainsi recevable.

  Keywords:

  receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4696

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de procéder au recouvrement des sommes qui lui auraient été indûment versées au titre de l’allocation de dépaysement.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  Eurocontrol soutient que la requête serait irrecevable au motif que le requérant n’aurait pas épuisé, contrairement aux exigences posées par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal, les voies de recours dont il disposait en tant qu’ancien fonctionnaire de l’Organisation. Mais le Tribunal relève que, en vertu de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, une décision implicite de rejet de la réclamation de l’intéressé, susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal, était née à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre mois à compter de l’introduction de cette réclamation, soit le 18 juin 2020. Dès lors, à la date du 16 septembre 2020 où le requérant a introduit sa requête, les voies de recours interne dont il disposait avaient bien été épuisées. La requête étant ainsi recevable, la fin de non-recevoir soulevée par l’Organisation sera écartée.

  Keywords:

  receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4695

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision exigeant le remboursement du salaire qu’il aurait indûment perçu lors d’absences déclarées injustifiées par l’administration.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  Eurocontrol soutient que la requête serait irrecevable au motif que le requérant n’aurait pas épuisé, contrairement aux exigences posées par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal, les voies de recours dont il disposait en tant qu’ancien fonctionnaire de l’Organisation. Mais le Tribunal relève que, en vertu de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, une décision implicite de rejet de la réclamation de l’intéressé, susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal, était née à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre mois à compter de l’introduction de cette réclamation, soit le 17 juin 2020. Dès lors, à la date du 15 septembre 2020 où le requérant a introduit sa requête, les voies de recours interne dont il disposait avaient bien été épuisées. La requête étant ainsi recevable, la fin de non-recevoir soulevée par l’Organisation sera écartée.

  Keywords:

  receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4694

  
  136th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision lui confirmant son aptitude au travail et lui intimant de reprendre ses fonctions.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [L]es écritures établissent qu’une réclamation contestant cette décision implicite ou explicite de refus de lui accorder le bénéfice d’un régime de temps partiel médical n’a jamais été introduite en temps utile par le requérant, si bien que ce dernier n’a pas épuisé les voies de recours interne qui pouvaient s’appliquer à cet égard, contrairement à ce qu’exige l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal.

  Keywords:

  failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  Eurocontrol soutient que la requête serait irrecevable au motif que le requérant n’aurait pas épuisé, contrairement aux exigences posées par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal, les voies de recours dont il disposait en tant que fonctionnaire de l’Organisation. Mais le Tribunal relève que, en vertu de la dernière phrase du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, une décision implicite de rejet de la réclamation de l’intéressé, susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal, était née à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre mois à compter de l’introduction de cette réclamation, soit le 10 novembre 2018. Dès lors, à la date du 7 février 2019 où le requérant a introduit sa requête, les voies de recours interne dont il disposait avaient bien été épuisées. La requête étant ainsi recevable, la fin de nonrecevoir soulevée par l’Organisation sera écartée.

  Keywords:

  receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4673

  
  136th Session, 2023
  The Pacific Community
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de mettre fin à son engagement au cours de sa période d’essai prolongée.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; probationary period; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  Le Tribunal a maintes fois rappelé l’importance d’observer rigoureusement les délais impartis pour contester une décision administrative. Dans son jugement 4103, au considérant 1, il a notamment souligné ce qui suit sur ce point:
  «La requête est irrecevable, le requérant n’ayant pas épuisé tous moyens de recours interne, comme l’exige l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. La réclamation du requérant était frappée de forclusion lorsqu’il l’a déposée [...] le 23 décembre 2014. En vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal, une requête n’est recevable que si la décision attaquée est définitive, l’intéressé ayant épuisé tous moyens de recours interne. Cela signifie qu’une requête sera considérée comme irrecevable si le recours interne qui la sous-tend n’a pas été formé dans les délais prescrits. Comme le Tribunal l’a maintes fois rappelé, l’observation rigoureuse des délais est essentielle pour conférer à une décision un effet juridique certain et irrévocable. Après l’expiration des délais impartis pour contester une décision, l’organisation est en droit de considérer que la décision en cause est juridiquement valable et qu’elle produit tous ses effets (voir le jugement 3758, aux considérants 10 et 11, et la jurisprudence citée).»
  (Voir aussi à ce sujet le jugement 4426, au considérant 9.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758, 4103, 4426
  

  Keywords:

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

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a également relevé dans le jugement 4184, au considérant 4, les délais fixés pour les procédures de recours interne et ceux prévus dans le Statut du Tribunal ont pour finalités importantes que les litiges soient traités en temps opportun et que les droits des parties soient fixés avec certitude à un moment précis (voir également, dans le même sens, le jugement 3704, aux considérants 2 et 3). La raison d’être de ce principe tient à ce que les délais ont un caractère objectif et leur observation rigoureuse est nécessaire pour garantir la stabilité des situations juridiques.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 4184
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4672

  
  136th Session, 2023
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the title of his post following his reinstatement.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The refusal to meet the complainant’s request in the letter of 18 July 2019 had no legal effect on the complainant. As neither the impugned decision nor the decision of 12 September 2019 had a legal effect on the complainant, there was no challengeable administrative decision in this case. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4661

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and challenges overall the insurance policy.

  Consideration 1

  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 unless, as required under paragraph 1, the official concerned has first exhausted the internal remedies available to her or him (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
  

  Keywords:

  internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4656

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: ITU has filed an application for the interpretation of order 2 of the decision contained in Judgment 4515.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [A]n application is receivable only if the meaning of order 2 gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or purport to such an extent that its execution is impossible (see Judgment 1306, consideration 2) [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306
  

  Keywords:

  application for interpretation; condition; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4655

  
  136th Session, 2023
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that the appeals lodged by the complainants were out of time renders their complaints irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the Organization, 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 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160
  

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4651

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4650

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4649

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4648

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• Judgment 4647

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

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

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 | next >