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 671
56th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was the second signatory of bank checks for amounts in excess of actual expenditure. Criminal proceedings were introduced against the first signatory. A sum representing part of the compensation payable to the complainant was distraint. The complainant seeks payment of that amount. The Tribunal observes that appeal against the decision was not lodged within the time limit and that the decision can no longer be challenged. However, because the decision is a "measure of distraint", it remains open to the complainant to request a review on the basis of a change of the position in law or in fact.
Keywords:
deduction; measure of distraint; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 669
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The general decision impugned* in this case puts no exact figure on the entitlement of the staff members concerned. That will be determined only when the administration comes to take individual decisions in pursuance of the general decision, viz. the Council's approval of the new text of [the] Article".
(*) amending a provision in the Service Regulations on benefits payable in the event of invalidity.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; invalidity; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 667
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [a complaint must also comply with] the rule in Article VII(1) of the Statute that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Summary
Extract:
The impugned decision is one of the Administrative Council. The Tribunal has ruled that cases challenging a general decision are irreceivable, since such a decision must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which appeal does lie.
Keywords:
application for quashing; decision; executive body; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant "is asking the Tribunal to set aside the Council's decision, not in its entirety, but only insofar as it affects himself. [The argument fails.] Obviously to set the impugned decision aside insofar as it affects the complainant would in fact have much the same consequences as to set it aside erga omnes.
Keywords:
application for quashing; consequence; enforcement; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 666
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Any person to whom the Tribunal is open under Article II of its Statute may apply to intervene in a case on the conditions stated in Article 17[2] of the Rules of court. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage, and the Tribunal decides whether they shall be allowed. The applications to intervene in the present case are receivable and the Tribunal's ruling on the merits of the complaints will hold good for the applications as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 17, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE RULES;
ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 663
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
By virtue of Article VII[1], "the Tribunal will declare irreceivable a complaint impugning a general decision against which there can be no direct internal appeal, but which must ordinarily be followed by individual decisions against which such appeal does lie. There are two reasons for so construing Article VII. The first is that the Tribunal is relieved of ruling on the validity of a general decision to which it may be unable to foresee exactly how effect will be given. The second is that the Tribunal will not be acting on an application from a single complainant to set aside a general decision which other staff may not object to."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The impugned decision is a general one. "Before coming before the Tribunal the complainant must wait until the administration has taken individual decisions concerning him and he has exhausted the internal means of redress. To declare his complaints irreceivable causes him no prejudice since he may appeal against future individual decisions, first inside the organisation, and then, if necessary to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The mere fact that the impugned decision affects several categories of staff and is therefore general in character is not in itself sufficient to make the complaints irreceivable. Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII[2] of the Statute of the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 662
56th Session, 1985
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The complaint does not allege the non-observance of any term of appointment or of any staff regulation. The Tribunal is therefore not competent to hear it." The complainant tendered his resignation and discharged no further duties. He claims damages equivalent to the amount of his salary for the period from his resignation to what would have been the end of his contract. He considers that the organization treated him unfairly upon his departure.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; resignation; separation from service;
Judgment 660
56th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The material decision would have had the effect of setting a new time limit for filing a complaint only if it had altered the previous decision or at least provided further justification for it. Since it amounted to mere confirmation, it does not affect the irreceivability of the complaint as held by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Staff Regulations provide for two internal means of redress: a 'request' that the Director General take a decision and a 'complaint' against an act adversely affecting the staff member. As the Tribunal held in Judgment No. 398, any application challenging a decision must be treated as a 'complaint'.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 398
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 659
56th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 660, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 660, consideration 1, paragraph 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 657
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
None of the complainants "objected to the decision on his starting grade and step, let alone duly filed an internal appeal [...] The decisions appointing them to [the grade in question] are beyond challenge and any claim which entails review of their grade and step on appointment is time-barred and irreceivable."
Keywords:
individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 655
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The letter in question, unlike the other letters is headed: "An appeal for [...]"; it is addressed to the Director-General (unlike the others) and it concludes with three claims that are much the same as those before the Tribunal. "It is therefore beyond doubt that [this] letter [...] is the only one to qualify, in form and content, as a [...] 'complaint'". (It is, however, time-barred.)
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The general rule is that a claim put forward in the rejoinder will be receivable only if it comes within the ambit of the claims in the complaint."
Keywords:
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The claim "is for performance by the ilo of its obligations under the Staff Regulations and under the rules of equity and natural justice. The formulation of such obligations is too vague and general for their performance to be subject to judicial review. The claim is irreceivable."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Judgment 654
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 655, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 655
Keywords:
organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant submitted a 'complaint' to the Director-General long after expiration of the time limit set by the applicable provisions. "He cannot therefore be deemed to have exhausted the internal means of redress provided in the Staff Regulations, and his present complaint is irreceivable."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 650
55th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants contend that the organisation had been in continuous breach of its obligations by failing to safeguard their enjoyment of entitlements they had before a specific date. They therefore allege that the organization acted unlawfully since that date. "The impugned decision therefore recurred right up to the date of the internal appeal, and that appeal was in time. The internal means of redress must be deemed to have been exhausted even though the Board did not go into the merits."
Keywords:
allowance; continuing breach; payment; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In this case, "the Board's further comments and the Director-General's further approval did not alter a whit the previous comments and decision. Being mere confirmation, they set off no new time limit for filing a complaint. The complaint is irreceivable because" the time limit for filing it had expired.
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is alleging misinterpretation of a statement by a supervisor. That would amount to misappraisal of evidence, and the plea is inadmissible."
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The claims in question "amount to a demand that the ILO stop acting in breach of its obligations under the Staff Regulations. The formulation of the obligations is so vague and general that their performance cannot be subject to judicial review. The claims are irreceivable."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant invites the Tribunal to order the immediate execution of the judgment in question. The organisation pleads that the claim is irreceivable on the grounds that the complainant has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. "This plea is unsound. Failure to execute a judgment does not constitute breach of the Staff Regulations or of the contract of employment or unjustifiable or unfair treatment and therefore cannot come under [the Staff Regulations]. What the complainant is asking for is neither more nor less than execution of a decision by the Tribunal on a matter within its competence, and the Tribunal may determine whether due effect has been given to that decision."
Keywords:
application for execution; claim; competence of tribunal; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 647
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Even if the letter [...] had been written without authority, the decision therein would not cease to exist on that account. [...] Provided a communication takes the form of a decision its lawfulness is immaterial to the reckoning of the time limit for lodging an appeal. To hold otherwise would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit."
Keywords:
competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 637
54th Session, 1984
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A claim will not be receivable unless couched in [sufficiently precise] terms". The Tribunal is being asked to order an amendment of the Staff Regulations to prescribe special safeguards for the disabled such as their 'social resettlement" and protection against dismissal. The wording is vague, and the Tribunal cannot issue any order of that kind to the [organisation]. The claim is therefore irreceivable [...] Besides it is clearly devoid of merit."
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; vague claim;
Judgment 634
54th Session, 1984
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The internal appeal lodged by the complainant was time-barred. Thus, "he has failed to comply with the provisions of Article VII of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, which require that he shall have exhausted such other means of resisting the impugned decision as were open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 630
54th Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the unfair treatment lies in her being kept idle for so long. Accordingly the time limit for filing an appeal did not begin on the date on which her supervisor decided, while keeping her on her post, to give her no more work: the injury occurred only with the passage of time. Thus, although it was only after being kept idle for a considerable lapse of time that the complainant appealed to the Director-General, and then to the Tribunal, for compensation for the injury she alleged, her claims are not time-barred and her complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
compensation; complaint; date; executive head; iloat; injury; internal appeal; period; post; receivability of the complaint; refusal to assign work; request by a party; start of time limit; supervisor; time bar;
Judgment 626
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Decisions which may be challenged before the Tribunal do not have to be individual in nature. That they may also be general is plain from Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] but a complaint against a general decision will not perforce on that account be receivable. There is also the rule in Article VII(1) of the Statute that the internal means of redress must have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 624, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 625
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 624, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 624
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 626, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 626
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 624
54th Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The decision impugned puts no exact figure on the entitlements of each staff member concerned. That may be done only when individual decisions are taken, ordinarily by the President [...] on the strength of the general decision. [Under the circumstances], the complainants may not now challenge the validity of the general decision. Before filing a complaint each must await a new individual decision."
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Vide Judgment 626, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; condition; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; 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 >
|
