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: 687

< 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 | next >



  • Judgment 2157


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is competent, ratione personae, to hear the complaint since, under Article ii, paragraph 6, of its Statute. The Tribunal is open to former staff members. However, Article ii, paragraph 5, restricts the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of an organisation's staff regulations. [...] As a general rule, a former staff member who applies for a post in an organisation after separation from it may not rely on the rules that governed his contract of appointment and so does not have access to the Tribunal (see, among others, Judgments 1845 [...] and 1554 [...])" except in the case of "any contractual obligation the [organisation] may have had to help the complainant to find new employment [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1554, 1845

    Keywords:

    candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; competition; complaint; contract; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2136


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 499

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;



  • Judgment 2129


    93rd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; collective bargaining; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2111


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal acknowledges that the relationship between officials and international organisations does not come to an end when they cease to work (see in this respect Judgment 986). It must therefore be recognised that former officials who consider that the terms of their contracts of employment or Staff Regulations have been disregarded, or that the administration has not accorded them the protection and guarantees deriving from their position as international civil servants, may avail themselves of the means of recourse available for the recognition of their rights [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 986

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service;



  • Judgment 2102


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The duty laid on international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration and not to impair their dignity may extend beyond the term of their appointment. In charging a staff member with misconduct in the performance of duty an organisation must observe due process, otherwise it may be held liable even after its contractual or statutory ties with the official have ceased, and the Tribunal will entertain such matters."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; separation from service;



  • Judgment 2095


    92nd Session, 2002
    Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 2091


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 12

    Extract:

    The complainant had an accident while on duty. He signed a settlement agreement with the organisation and the CERN Pension Fund in order to solve the issue of the payment of an incapacity pension by the pension fund. "The ESO submits the complaint is not receivable as it does not allege non-observance of the terms of the complainant's appointment or of the [organisation]'s rules and regulations [...]. The Tribunal considers that since the settlement between the complainant, the [organisation] and the CERN Pension Fund arises out of the complainant's rights under his contract of employment as well as the Staff Rules and Regulations, it has jurisdiction to consider the effect of the trilateral agreement."

    Keywords:

    breach; cern pension fund; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; consequence; contract; definition; effect; iloat; incapacity; judicial review; organisation; payment; pension; professional accident; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2089


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complaint attacks a decision [...] amending Article 36 of the [organisation]'s Pension Scheme rules. While the Tribunal cannot grant the claim for quashing that amended article and the complaint is, to that extent, irreceivable, the Tribunal will treat it as a complaint against the application of the amended article in breach of the complainants' acquired rights."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 36 OF THE EMBL'S PENSION SCHEME RULES

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; impugned decision; pension; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2081


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;



  • Judgment 2067


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 2066


    91st Session, 2001
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."

    Keywords:

    case law; collective bargaining; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2065


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    "In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2063


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    After the complainant underwent surgery, the insurance brokers refused to cover his convalescence in a home. "In order to assess any physical injury suffered by the complainant, it is necessary to ascertain the later consequences for his health of the refusal to meet the costs of his admission to a convalescent home, and the fact that he did not as a result stay in such a home. These are purely medical matters which [...] need to be referred to the Invalidity Committee".

    Keywords:

    claim; competence; consequence; health insurance; illness; medical board; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2061


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal [...] does not have the authority to issue recommendations about an organisation's general policy."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 2058


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant asks that the defendant be ordered to publish a denial of the accusations made in [a flash published by the staff union]. It is not, however, for the Tribunal to issue such an injunction."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; moral injury; publication; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff union;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] is right to object to the receivability of [the complaintant's] claim to the quashing of the invitation to him to write letters of apology. Although one of a set of measures devised by the organization in an attempt to put an end to this regrettable affair, the 'invitation' does not constitute, contrary to what the complainant asserts, a decision that can be set aside. If, however, the measure was proved to be excessive, as the complainant contends it is, his claim to compensation for moral injury arising from the affront to his dignity could be justified." (This is not the case here: see consideration 14.)

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; decision; decision quashed; moral injury; proposal; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2057


    91st Session, 2001
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal found in Judgment 1682, confirming the precedent in Judgment 1329 [...], a line of argument cannot be entertained that would allow appeals to lie sine die against past decisions in a matter as delicate as the setting and periodic adjustment of staff pay."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329, 1682

    Keywords:

    adjustment; case law; decision; period; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2039


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; case law; collective bargaining; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2037


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.

    Keywords:

    appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2036


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Members of an advisory body are entitled to challenge a measure (for which an advisory opinion should have been sought) on the grounds that prior consultation with the advisory body did not take place.

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complainant; consultation; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2027


    90th Session, 2001
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;

< 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 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top