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 1104
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was asked to report to an expert medical examination to examine his fitness for shift work. He objects to questions the organization put to the expert. Though the complaint is receivable, the Tribunal dismisses it on the merits since the material questions were relevant to the dispute and did not deprive the complainant of any safeguard. Once the medical expert has reported and the administrative decision been taken, the complainant may submit a further complaint bearing on the dispute as a whole.
Keywords:
expert inquiry; incapacity; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; safeguard;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant having refused to undergo examination by a medical expert to determine whether he was fit for shift work, the organization ordered him to undergo examination or incur the risk of disciplinary sanction. The appeals body took the same view and the Director-General endorsed its recommendation. That is the decision under challenge. CERN submits that the complaint shows no cause of action because the impugned decision does not directly affect the complainant. Though merely preparatory decisions are not ordinarily actionable, the Tribunal treats this case as an exception: the complainant has been issued a warning which in itself causes him injury.
Keywords:
cause of action; injury; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1102
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to Article 7 and Appendix II of the Rules of court the complainant must make clear in the statement of his claims what his case is about and submit a brief setting out the facts and his arguments in support of those claims. The complainant has failed to explain in comprehensible terms what it is he wants or to file any legal plea in support".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 AND APPENDIX II OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Judgment 1101
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants, who are employees of Eurocontrol, seek the quashing of an Office Notice insofar as it informs staff that expenses arising from trace-element therapy (oligo-elements), aromatherapy and phytotherapy are not to be refunded. The Agency pleas that the complaint is irreceivable. "It is worth pointing out that in Judgment 961 [...] of 27 June 1989 the Tribunal held that it was 'competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes' and would not make prior rulings of general purport. Again in Judgment 1081 [...] of 29 January 1991 it affirmed that no appeal would lie against a general decision provided that it was such as needed in all cases to be followed by a challengeable individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 961, 1081
Keywords:
administrative instruction; cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund; refusal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants are challenging an Office Notice that merely informs them that expenses incurred for certain forms of treatment will not be refunded. "There will be a decision challengeable under Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute only when Eurocontrol has, in accordance with its rules, refused a staff member refund of the cost of a particular sort of treatment. The Tribunal will then rule according to the criteria it stated in Judgment 1088 of 29 January 1991, taking medical advice if need be. It may not make a prior ruling of general application to the sorts of treatment covered by the Office Notice."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1088
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competence of tribunal; general decision; health insurance; individual decision; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; refund;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainants are challenging a general decision. They "cannot yet show any cause of action and their complaints must fail because they are irreceivable. [...] Since, however, before altering its stand the organisation directly encouraged them to file the present complaints, it is only reasonable that it should bear the costs".
Keywords:
cause of action; costs; exception; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1100
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant challenged the reckoning of her pension in the internal appeal. Having obtained satisfaction after she filed her complaint she withdrew her main claims but presses her claim to moral damages and costs. The Tribunal considers her complaint premature because it challenges a decision which was stated to be provisional, and the withdrawal of her main claim makes her claim to damages void. Nor is she entitled to costs.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case pending; cause of action; no cause of action; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1097
71st Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal contained a claim to a certificate of service in keeping with the Staff Rules. She got one before filing her complaint and therefore has no cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; certificate of service; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII." (See also Judgment 1095.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1095
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the complaints have met the requirements of [article] VII [of the Tribunal's Statute] and the time limits therein the plea of irreceivability fails. The organisation's belated decisions expressly rejecting the appeals do not alter the substance of the dispute, which turns on the rejection to be inferred from expiry of the time limit in [Article]VII(3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; late decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1095
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 873 (in re Da) the CIPEC Staff Regulations do not provide for internal appeal. But that does not preclude the organisation's entertaining such an appeal ex gratia."The complainant addressed an appeal to the decision- making authority" before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the original decision and the Secretary-General's answer was to uphold that decision. So it is fair to take the ninety days as running from the date of confirmation and treat the complaint as filed in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 873
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; no provision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1081
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The fact "that the measure under challenge affects several groups of staff and is therefore general in purport [...] does not in itself make the complaints irreceivable: decisions do not need to be individual to be challengeable before the Tribunal. As Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute makes plain, a general decision too is challengeable. That article sets the time limit for filing a complaint against 'a decision affecting a class of officials', in other words a general decision. Yet that does not mean that a complaint challenging any sort of general decision will necessarily be receivable: there is also the rule in VII(1) that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; date; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainants want to have the revised weighings with retroactive force from 1 January 1981 taken into account for determination of the "Eurocontrol reduction" imposed on their salaries. The impugned decision does not "put figures on the entitlements of each of the complainants it applies to. [...] In the circumstances the complainants may not now challenge the validity of the general decision they are objecting to. Before they come to the Tribunal they must be able to cite individual decisions."
Keywords:
adjustment; cost-of-living weighting; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 1068
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4, Summary
Extract:
The complainant received a termination indemnity under Article 11.6 of the ILO Staff Regulations (indemnity upon reduction of staff). She claims a more generous one under Article 11.16 (agreed termination). The indemnity under dispute was mentioned in an agreement signed in 1977, which the Tribunal recognised as valid in Judgment 404 of 24 April 1980. Besides, her entitlements were paid in full on 24 January 1979. Her claim of 20 December 1988 is therefore time- barred under Article 14.8 and also irreceivable under the res judicata rule.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 11.6 AND 11.16 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
agreed termination; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; terminal entitlements; time bar;
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
By a letter of 20 December 1988 the complainant asked the Director-General to pay her three months' salary based on an offer made to her on 23 October 1981. Her claim was nowhere near being in time according to the time limit set in Article 14.8 of the Staff Regulations. The organisation's failure to pay her has no effect on the time limit.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 14.8 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 1066
70th Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
On 15 March 1990 the complainant's counsel wrote to the Director-General asking him to grant her the benefit of termination on abolition of post. In its reply of 29 March CERN indicated that the matter was being examined. The complainant filed her complaint on 21 May 1990 under Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute. As no rejection of her claim be inferred in the circumstances of the case, the complaint is premature.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1064
70th Session, 1991
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
On 3 April 1990 the complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 972, which was delivered on 27 June 1989. Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court set any time limit for the filing of such applications (see Judgment 538). The Tribunal will look at the circumstances in which a claim is made before deciding what constitutes a reasonable time. In the instant case the complainant is not guilty of such delay as to make his application irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 538
Keywords:
application for interpretation; no provision; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1063
70th Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant impugns his performance report. Because he failed to follow the internal appeals procedure his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1056
70th Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant is not challenging any administrative decision. Nor has he submitted any text that may be treated as a claim that has by implication been rejected. His complaint is therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant got word of the decision not to renew his contract before receiving formal notification. "The only date that matters for the purpose of reckoning the time limit in [Article] VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute] is the date of formal notification of the final decision in writing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1039
69th Session, 1990
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant lodged two internal appeals against the decision not to renew her appointment. Her first appeal, which she submitted directly to the Board, was irreceivable because under paragraph 7(a) she ought first to have addressed her claim to the Director-General. The second appeal, which she did address to the Director-General, was out of time by one day. There having been no waiver of the time limit under paragraph 8 of the Statutes, her complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7(A) AND 8 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1019
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Though a complainant may not submit to the Tribunal any claim which he did not make in the internal proceedings a new plea is another matter."
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1012
68th Session, 1990
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The decision to reduce pay at Eurocontrol was confirmed on 12 November 1987. "Though the pay slips [giving effect to the reduction] are plainly unlawful because the Commission's decision still had to come into effect, they apply only to the period they cover and cannot be treated as giving effect to a decision that had not yet become final. Not a single complainant has challenged an individual decision subsequent to 12 November 1987. The Tribunal is therefore bound, regrettably, to declare the claims irreceivable insofar as they object to future reductions in pay."
Keywords:
application for quashing; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In line with the principles the Tribunal affirmed in Judgments 624 and 902 the complainants may challenge the Director General's decisions to apply the general measures to them and may thereby also challenge the lawfulness of the commission's decisions. [...] The defendant's objections to receivability fail insofar as they relate to the pay slips the complainants received in July, August and September 1987" and which informed them of reductions made to their salary.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 902
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1011
68th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final one and such remedies as are available under the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. To satisfy that requirement, which is mandatory, the staff member must duly lodge an internal appeal with the competent body within the time limit in the Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
formal requirements; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Summary
Extract:
To take account of shifts in currency rates when reckoning the pay of officials who changed categories on promotion, the ITU began to follow United Nations practice by adopting in 1988 the so-called "anniversary calculation" system. The complainant, who was promoted in 1985 from grade G.7 to P.2, is seeking to have her pay so reviewed. On 28 January 1986 she wrote to the chief of personnel objecting to the loss of salary she suffered as a result of promotion. On 26 May 1988 she appealed to the Appeal Board. The Tribunal holds that the memorandum of 28 January 1986 cannot be construed either in form or in substance as a request for review under Rule 11.1.2 but was merely a written claim under Rule 3.17.1. Her appeal of 26 May 1988 was patently out of time and the complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: RULES 3.17.1 AND 11.1.1.2 OF THE ITU STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES
Keywords:
consequence; formal requirements; general service category; internal appeal; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar;
< 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 >
|
