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 1010
68th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal against termination after the extension of his probation is time-barred. He argues "that an unregistered letter from someone other than the Director-General cannot constitute proper notice of dismissal or of extension of probation. [The] plea fails [...]. Provided that the staff member is given official notice of a decision the time limit starts to run and there is no need for special procedural formalities. And the absence of the Director-General's signature can have no effect on the time limit for appeal even though it may in some circumstances warrant setting the decision aside."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1007
68th Session, 1990
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's first internal appeal against the denial of promotion was considered receivable but failed. A second appeal which he filed one year later was not treated as such by the organization. The second appeal had the same wording at the beginning and end as the first. The Tribunal holds that the Director-General should have treated the appeal as such and forwarded it to the secretariat of the Joint Advisory Appeals Board in keeping with Article R B 2.07 of Annex R B 2 of the CERN Staff Regulations. The case is remitted to the organization.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R B 2.07 OF ANNEX R B 2 OF THE CERN STAFF RULES
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; formal requirements; further submissions on the merits; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1005
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claimed the benefit of a decision delivered on 12 December 1986 (Judgment 792). She got notice of the organisation's final decision to refuse her claim in a letter dated 26 February 1988. But she failed to challenge that decision within the ninety-day limit laid down in Article VII(2) of the Statute. So her complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1003
68th Session, 1990
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Before the complaint was filed the Organisation went back on its decision to dismiss him and replaced it by a reprimand. Since the decision "has been withdrawn and has had no effect on his career there is no cause of action and his complaint is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792
Keywords:
cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court; termination of employment;
Judgment 1002
68th Session, 1990
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complaint is irreceivable because [the complainant] has failed to exhaust the means of redress available to him under the Staff Regulations and is not challenging a final decision."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1001
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"When impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision-maker; general decision; inquiry; investigation; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The parties agreed to dispense with prior referral to the Joint Appeals Board and to put the dispute directly to the Tribunal, as Rule 112.03 of UNIDO's Staff Rules allows." Because of that provision in the Organization's Rules, the requirement set out in Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute is met.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: RULE 112.03 OF THE UNIDO STAFF RULES
Keywords:
acceptance; direct appeal to tribunal; enforcement; exception; executive head; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1000
68th Session, 1990
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
See Judgment 1001, consideration 12.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1001
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; decision-maker; general decision; inquiry; investigation; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The parties agreed to dispense with prior referral to the Joint Appeals Committee and to put the dispute directly to the Tribunal, as Rule 12.02.1(b) of the Agency's Provisional Staff Rules allows." Because of that provision in the Agency's Rules, the requirement set out in Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute is met.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: RULE 12.02.1(B) OF THE IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF RULES
Keywords:
acceptance; direct appeal to tribunal; enforcement; exception; executive head; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 997
68th Session, 1990
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 647, provided a communication takes the form of a decision, its lawfulness is immaterial for the purpose of lodging an appeal." In the circumstances of the case the complainant's internal appeal against a decision requiring him to take home leave before a specified date was time-barred. The complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 647
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 995
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint shall not be receivable unless the impugned decision is final, the complainant having exhausted the means of redress available to him under the staff regulations. That constitutes a requirement to follow any internal procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations: the staff member must not only respect the time limits for appeal but also comply with any stipulations as to procedure in the Regulations or Implementing Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
enforcement; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Summary
Extract:
According to paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Statutes of the UNESCO Appeals Board, appeals must be presented by the official concerned or, on his behalf, by any other member of the Secretariat stationed at headquarters. The complainant was represented by a lawyer before the Appeals Board and thereby failed to comply with the prescribed procedure. His complaint is accordingly irreceivable. The Tribunal remarks that as lawyers ordinarily have access to any judicial body the rules governing the internal appeals procedure would not be admissible before a court of law. But under the circumstances of the instant case the rules in the Board's Statutes must be construed strictly.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 9 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD
Keywords:
complainant; counsel; enforcement; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 993
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant has never appealed against the decision to terminate him. Because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII(1) of the Statute, his complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 990
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new, lower scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. That scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations, did not come into force for officials serving in the organization until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension was nonetheless reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. She challenges the Director-General's implied rejection of her internal complaint seeking to have her pension reckoned according to the old scale up to 31 March 1985 or, failing that, compensation. The Organization submits that the measure had come to her attention through various channels and that the complaint was out of time. The Tribunal holds that the Staff Regulations contained an explicit provision which set out the staff's rights. The staff were not told of any valid ilo decision not to abide by the Staff Regulations. The Organization's contention that the complaint is irreceivable is mistaken.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; difference; effective date; fund regulations; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 978
66th Session, 1989
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"None of the interveners is barred by any lapse of time from claiming entitlement to the non-resident's allowance and to the other benefits. [...] Acquiescence is not a valid plea open to the organization and a woman staff member may at any time object to discriminatory treatment."
Keywords:
allowance; continuing breach; equal treatment; intervention; non-resident allowance; receivability of the complaint; sex discrimination; time bar;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the rule was unlawful it could never become lawful by lapse of time or by acquiescence and a claim could therefore never be barred. Even though a claim to actual payment of the non-resident's allowance cannot succeed in these proceedings because of the complainant's failure to follow the proper internal procedure, the question of her entitlement to the allowance must be considered because of its bearing on the matter of the recurrent benefits."
Keywords:
allowance; continuing breach; flaw; non-resident allowance; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; time bar;
Judgment 977
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Having made his 13.1 request for review on 7 October 1987, the complainant submitted a 'complaint' under 13.2 on 8 April 1988. The lodging of the 13.1 request and the substance of it show that the complainant had become aware of the 'treatment complained of' over six months before he lodged his 'complaint', and it was therefore out of time under 13.2."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS;
ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 970
66th Session, 1989
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant [...] contends that each alleged short-payment of salary constitutes in itself a separate breach by the Union of its obligations towards him. But since he has not sought review by the Secretary-General of any of the alleged short-payments, his complaint is again irreceivable".
Keywords:
complaint; continuing breach; decision; internal remedies exhausted; payment; receivability of the complaint; salary;
Judgment 963
66th Session, 1989
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants received notification in their pay slips of a 0.7 per cent reduction in the refundable amount of education expenses which they had incurred. The organisation contends that the pay slips merely confirmed earlier decisions, viz. a general decision of 7 July 1987. The Tribunal holds that the impugned decisions were individual ones that cause the complainants injury, and not confirmations of earlier decisions.
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; deduction; education expenses; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; refund; salary;
Judgment 961
66th Session, 1989
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4, Summary
Extract:
The Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol took a decision of policy to bring about a differential of up to 5 per cent between staff pensions in the European Communities and pensions in Eurocontrol. The complainants are challenging a general decision, not individual decisions. Not one of the complainants has retired. "Since the amount of the complainants' pension contributions is not under challenge, all that is material in this case is the amount each complainant will get when he retires. The Tribunal will not make a general ruling, being competent only to entertain individual and actual disputes, and it therefore declares the complaints irreceivable."
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; legislative body; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary;
Judgment 960
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Although a complainant may put forward a new plea at any point in proceedings before the Tribunal, he may not in his rejoinder enlarge the scope of his claims as stated in his original complaint."
Keywords:
new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the complainant's internal appeal against the application of the amended scale of pensionable remuneration was time-barred. The plea fails. The Tribunal holds that "although [the complainant] must have known for over two years that amending the scale would have consequences when she left she could not know what the financial consequences would be."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; decision; internal appeal; pension; pensionable remuneration; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; retirement; scale; separation from service; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 955
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's "argument that he was late in discovering that the decision had been unlawful is irrelevant: a time limit is a matter of objective fact and starts when the decision is notified. if that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of time limits. An exception might be allowed only if the organisation had acted in bad faith and misled the official."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Article VII[1] of the Tribunal's Statute provides that a complaint will not be receivable unless the official has exhausted the internal means of redress. to satisfy that requirement it is not enough for the official to submit an internal appeal: he must submit it in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 949
65th Session, 1988
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant retired in December 1985. He is seeking inter alia recognition of his actual duties from the date of appointment in August 1970, reinstatement at grade P.2 as from 31 August 1970, and revision of his retirement pension. "The complaint is clearly irreceivable both because the complainant is not impugning any decision and because any time limit for appealing against the injury he alleges expired many years ago."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; retirement; summary procedure; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 944
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The internal appeal was signed by Mr. [E.] whereas the complaint is signed by Mr. [E.]'s wife. "There being no need for a ruling of general purport on the issue, the Tribunal holds that in the circumstances of the case the complaint may be deemed receivable. [...] The complainant's husband, [...] like her, is an official of the EPO; they concur on the material issue and the purpose of the suit relates to a matter of social security for spouses".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; difference; exception; family relationship; internal appeal; locus standi; marital status; receivability of the complaint;
< 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 >
|
