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: 735

< previous | 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 | next >

• Judgment 2811

  
  106th Session, 2009
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  "In an attempt to show that her complaint is receivable the complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal to the Board of Appeal or Grievance Panel would not have served any practical purpose [...].
  The Tribunal will not accept this line of argument, since to do so would be tantamount to allowing a staff member, on his or her own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed.
  Apart from the fact that this solution would conflict directly with the terms of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it would belie the actual point of making internal appeals obligatory, which is what justifies this provision. However, as the Tribunal has already emphasised, [...] the purpose of the requirement that internal means of redress be exhausted is not only to ensure that staff members do actually avail themselves of any opportunities they may have within an organisation for obtaining redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal, but also to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a staff member lodges a complaint, to have at its disposal a file supplemented by information from the records of the internal appeal procedure."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141
  

  Keywords:

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

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. Relying on various Tribunal judgments where complainants were deemed to have exhausted internal means of redress when it transpired that the latter would be inconclusive, she contends that she was likewise in a situation where she was entitled to turn directly to the Tribunal.
  "The complainant is mistaken in believing that she may be deemed in this case to have exhausted internal means of redress. The precedents to which she refers [...] refer to cases where, owing to the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings, or the organisation's wrongful attempts to impede the examination of such an appeal, the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted would have paralysed the complainant's exercise of his or her right to have access to the Tribunal. However, as a general rule, and according to the same line of precedent, this departure from the application of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal will be accepted only where complainants have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to have their internal appeal effectively examined, so that they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for a failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available within an organisation. But, this is not the case here where, on the contrary, the complainant quite simply refrained from filing such an appeal and therefore took it upon herself not to comply with this precondition for filing a complaint with the Tribunal."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1829, 1968, 2039
  

  Keywords:

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

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to challenge the Director-General's decision before the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that, bearing in mind the purely advisory nature of this body, the Director-General could have confirmed her initial decision, no matter what recommendation was made to her.
  "The fact that the recommendations of the Board of Appeal are not binding on the decision-making authority does not mean that they have no weight in the internal appeals procedure, since the Director-General has a legal duty to give such recommendations due consideration and, according to the Tribunal's case law, can lawfully depart from them only for clear and cogent reasons."

  Keywords:

  complaint; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that her internal appeal could not be examined with due objectiveness and impartiality and she indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642 that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings.
  "Although the complainant indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642, delivered on 11 July 2007, that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings, this judgment should not be construed as general criticism of the way such panels operate."

  Keywords:

  case law; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  "Some of [the complainant's] requests clearly lie outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This is true, for example, of the requests that the Tribunal order the imposition of disciplinary measures on staff members of the Organization, that the complainant be sent a public letter of apology [...] or that a management audit of her department be conducted by independent experts. This is also true of the request that the Tribunal order the Organization to take steps to ensure that the complainant's immediate supervisor will no longer supervise her."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 968, 1591, 2605
  

  Keywords:

  claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; supervisor;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2798

  
  106th Session, 2009
  International Organisation of Vine and Wine
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
  "It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."

  Reference(s)

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

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2796

  
  106th Session, 2009
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
  "None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720
  

  Keywords:

  claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2780

  
  106th Session, 2009
  World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2755

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant challenges an appointment on the grounds that it was made without a competition, or even a call for candidatures. She filed her complaint both as an ILO official and in her capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee. The defendant contends that the complaint is irreceivable insofar as it has been filed on behalf of the Staff Union Committee. "The Tribunal considers that the debate concerning the receivability of the complaint, insofar as it was filed by the complainant in her capacity as Chairperson of the Office's Staff Union Committee, has no bearing on the outcome of proceedings, since the complaint is receivable having been filed by an official with locus standi."

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2751

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

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720
  

  Keywords:

  apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2742

  
  105th Session, 2008
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 44

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal issues binding orders, not recommendations as sought by the complainant. Additionally, the Tribunal has no power to order a party to apologise."

  Keywords:

  claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; vested competence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2740

  
  105th Session, 2008
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2730

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

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "All issues of receivability raised may [...] remain undecided because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."

  Keywords:

  complaint; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2725

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[A] complainant is entitled to challenge before the Tribunal a decision that confers benefits on third parties if it may result in unequal treatment to his detriment."

  Keywords:

  decision; equal treatment; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2722

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
  

  Keywords:

  breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2715

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

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2708

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

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  "The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
  The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
  The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
  The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."

  Reference(s)

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

  Keywords:

  complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2649

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
  

  Keywords:

  breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2636

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

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2631

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

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
  Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
  

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2630

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "[A]s held in Judgment 1712, '[t]he necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury'. Moreover, the case law has it that 'receivability does not depend on proving actual and certain injury', all that a complainant need show is that the decision under challenge 'may impair the rights and safeguards that an international civil servant claims under staff regulations or contract of employment' (see Judgment 1330, under 4)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 1712
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; decision; effect; injury; official; receivability of the complaint; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2610

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "While it is highly desirable that staff representatives should be allowed to participate in operations to determine their colleagues' remuneration, this can in no way affect the right of each staff member to avail himself or herself of the means of redress which are open to him or her and which constitute a fundamental safeguard for international civil servants. The ICSC is therefore mistaken in believing that it can rely on the theory of estoppel vis-à-vis the complainants by arguing that staff representatives are supposed to act on behalf of all the members of the personnel and that 'their actions should be considered as legally attributable to each and every one of the staff they represent'."

  Keywords:

  adjustment; general principle; icsc decision; internal appeal; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard; salary; scale; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2598

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  "Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.
  
  In view of the [...] circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.
  
  The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.
  
  The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2583

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "[A]ccording to precedent (see for example Judgments 1330 and 2204), staff members have an obvious interest in ascertaining the value of their pension rights as soon as possible, even if they are still serving: the receivability of their action does not depend on proving actual and certain injury, but on their having an interest in obtaining recognition of their future rights, regardless of whether their pleadings are well founded."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 2204
  

  Keywords:

  amount; case law; condition; consequence; injury; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; staff member's interest; subsidiary;
  

< previous | 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 | next >