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: 770
< 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, 38, 39 | next >
Judgment 4641
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the interim results of his job grade evaluation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant has failed to challenge a final decision as required by paragraph 1 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, which states that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It is clear that the “decision” contained in the 2 May 2013 letter that the complainant purported to challenge was a mere step towards what eventually became a final challengeable decision of 9 October 2013, which informed him of the outcome of his job evaluation and which he has contested in another internal appeal.
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also seeks an order setting aside the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, impugned by the complainant, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, in respect of the EPO’s Appeals Committee, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. This is equally true of an opinion of the Appraisals Committee. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3171, consideration 13).
It follows that this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4392
Keywords:
impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4636
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension of his sick leave following the expiry of his maximum period of sick leave and the failure to recognise that he suffered from invalidity which was attributable to the performance of official duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Since [...] the complaint was already moot when it was filed with the Tribunal on 6 April 2019 – and not that its became moot during these proceedings, in which case the Tribunal would have found that there was no longer any need to rule on it – the complaint must simply be dismissed (on the concept of a complaint or claim devoid of purpose, see Judgments 4060, consideration 3, 3583, consideration 2, or 2856, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856, 3583, 4060
Keywords:
claim moot; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the decision contested by the complainant was not an act adversely affecting him and therefore could not be challenged. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable.
[T]he refusal to grant the complainant’s request for an expert to be consulted had neither the aim nor the effect of ending the procedure he had initiated with a view to obtaining recognition that his invalidity was caused by an occupational disease. The refusal only meant that the request in question would be submitted to the Medical Committee for consideration, instead of being regarded as having to be granted automatically, as the complainant contended. Apart from the fact that it in no way prejudiced the eventual outcome of the request, this decision was merely a step in the process of reaching a final decision on the question of whether the invalidity was to be recognised as service incurred.
However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, when a decision is thus taken in the procedure leading to a final administrative decision, it must be regarded merely as a preparatory step and is not therefore challengeable in itself, although it may be challenged in the context of an appeal directed against that final decision (see, for example, Judgments 3433, consideration 9, and 2366, consideration 16, or, specifically in respect of decisions taken, as in this case, in proceedings of a medical nature, Judgments 3893, consideration 8, or 3712, consideration 3).
Lastly, while it must be noted that from the start of the dispute the EPO has never argued that the complainant’s claims are irreceivable, that does not prevent such a finding in the present judgment. It is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, in particular, Judgments 3648, consideration 5, 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, or 2097, consideration 24) and, while plainly it will not do so unless the submissions make such irreceivability clear, that is the situation here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2097, 2366, 2567, 3139, 3433, 3648, 3712, 3893
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; expert inquiry; medical board; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4632
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejections of his requests for decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4607
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegation that the opening of an investigation against her involved abuse of authority and the decision not to investigate her allegations against the Acting Director of the Internal Oversight Division.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is desirable to address at the outset the question of receivability, and the Tribunal can do so ex officio (see, for example, Judgments 3139, consideration 3, and 2567, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2567, 3139
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4597
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary pursuant to the implementation of the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
Consideration 8
Extract:
WHO does not argue that the complaint is irreceivable but this is an issue the Tribunal can raise ex officio (see, for example, Judgment 4334, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4334
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant impugns three decisions, namely, the decision to introduce a unified salary scale, the decision to reduce the dependency allowance and the decision to alter the benefits payable by way of education grant. As noted earlier, these are general decisions. The complainant characterises the decision of the Director-General of 9 August 2019 as an individual decision. In some senses it is, in that it disposed of the complainant’s particular appeal brought as an individual staff member. However, this is not the focus of the case law. A relevant individual decision is one in which a general decision is applied to the particular circumstances of the complainant in a way that adversely affects the complainant. It is for this reason that many general decisions are challenged by reference to a payslip in which individual payments are made to a complainant who seeks to argue the relevant general decision underpinning the payment has adversely affected her or him (see, for example, Judgment 3614, consideration 12). By confining challenges to general decisions in this way, two related objectives are achieved. The first is that it requires the Tribunal to focus on the individual circumstances of the complainant, given that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction conferred by its Statute is substantially concerned with individual grievances. The second concerns relief. Generally, the Tribunal’s power to grant relief (see Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute) is limited to remedying the effect of an organisation’s unlawful conduct in relation to the complainant alone and not relief cast more broadly.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4582
135th Session, 2023
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the reclassification of her employment contracts. She also claims that she was the victim of harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she alleges to have suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Organisation challenges the Tribunal’s competence to hear the complaint. However, the Tribunal recalls that, under Article II, paragraph 6(a), of its Statute, the Tribunal is open to any official, “even if her or his employment has ceased”. The challenge to the Tribunal’s competence will therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence; former official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4581
135th Session, 2023
International Cocoa Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount paid to him by way of a termination indemnity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The ICCO submits that as relations between the parties began and ended before the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not competent to hear this case. It is noteworthy that it was on 20 August 2019 that the Executive Director of the ICCO sent a request for recognition of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the Director-General of the International Labour Office. At its 337th Session, the ILO’s Governing Body approved that recognition with effect from 30 October 2019.
Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organization concerned has addressed a declaration recognizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Inasmuch as the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at the time when the complainant filed his complaint on 10 December 2019, the Tribunal is competent to hear it pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4575
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints concern compensation following the refusal to allow the Central Staff Committee to publish two documents on the EPO’s Intranet.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the receivability of the complainants’ request for an award of moral damages in the amount of one euro per staff member, the Tribunal notes that its jurisdiction ratione personae, pursuant to Article II of the Statute, is of an individual nature. The Tribunal can only order that the Organisation pay compensation for damages to the complainants (Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal), and not to third parties. For this reason, the Tribunal will not follow Judgment 2857, which underpins the complainants’ argument on this topic.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2857
Keywords:
cause of action; moral damages; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; third party;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t [is not] appropriate [...] to grant [the complainant's] request for the IAC’s opinion to be set aside as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). This request is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4556
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks to be provided with a copy of his old medical file.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks the setting aside of the IAC’s opinion. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). It follows that this request is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4550
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member cannot challenge a decision of general application unless and until an individual decision adversely affecting her or him has been adopted (see, for example, Judgments 1852, consideration 3, 2822, consideration 6, or 4430, consideration 14), an exception is made where the decision of general application does not require any implementing decision and immediately affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 3761, consideration 14, 4430, considerations 14 and 15, or 4482, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2822, 3761, 4430, 4482
Keywords:
general decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s internal appeal was receivable. Contrary to what IFAD submits, the complaint before the Tribunal is therefore receivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to the extent that it seeks the setting aside of the decision of 20 February 2017. In addition, the decision of 20 February 2017 is tainted by an error of law in that it rejected the complainant’s appeal as time-barred.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4526
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract for misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recently concluded in Judgment 3551, consistent with more recent case law, that a person in a situation broadly analogous to that of the complainant could not avail himself of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as he was not an official of the defendant organisation. Not only was the existence of an arbitration clause viewed as relevant in Judgment 3551 in determining the status of the complainant, the existence of such a clause has, in a number of cases concerning individuals on contract, been treated as evidencing an agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1938, consideration 4, 2017, consideration 2(a), 2688, consideration 5, 2888, consideration 5, and 3705, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1938, 2017, 2688, 2888, 3551, 3705
Keywords:
competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4517
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that article and are not applicable unless, as required under paragraph 1, the official concerned has first exhausted the internal remedies available to her or him (see, in particular, Judgment 185 and Judgment 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185, 2631
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4494
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that UNESCO failed to take a decision within sixty days on his claim.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s claim has been addressed by the Assistant Director-General and forwarded to the competent services.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4486
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.
Consideration 4
Extract:
With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.
Keywords:
competence; internal appeals body; member of an internal body; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 4485
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Acting in his capacity as a staff representative, the complainant challenges the decision to assign different duties and responsibilities to a Principal Director without a competitive selection process.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The EPO notes that the complainant filed the present complaint in his capacity as a staff representative, but explicitly states that it does not challenge the receivability of the complaint. In view of the position of the EPO and the fact that, ultimately, the complaint is to be dismissed, the Tribunal will not, itself, examine the receivability of the complaint. However, this should not be taken as a tacit acceptance by the Tribunal that, in a similar case in the future, the complaint will be treated, without question, as receivable.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The EPO raises, as a threshold issue, whether the complaint is receivable. It can do so notwithstanding that receivability was not raised in the internal appeal, a point relied upon by the complainant in arguing that it cannot be raised now. That is because the issue raised by the EPO is whether the requirements of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal are met. Necessarily that issue can only arise when a complainant seeks to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It cannot arise at an earlier time and could not, in any meaningful way, be raised and determined in the internal appeal. In any event, the Tribunal can address the question of its own motion (Judgment 4317, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4317
Keywords:
estoppel; exception; new claim; 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, 38, 39 | next >
|
