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 4114


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The fifth complaint is irreceivable because the complainant had not, at the time of its filing, exhausted internal means of redress. The complainant argues that he had, because Article 110(2)(c) of the Service Regulations says, in relation to certain specified decisions, they are excluded from the internal appeal procedure, including “decisions taken after consultation of the Disciplinary Committee”. However the Tribunal has held in Judgment 3888, consideration 9, that Article 110 of the Service Regulations does not absolve a complainant from the need to seek a review to satisfy the Tribunal’s jurisdictional threshold that a complainant must have exhausted internal means of redress. The complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3888

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4113


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890

    Keywords:

    final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4112


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests retroactively his promotions.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The EPO was correct in dismissing the internal appeal as time-barred. In the result, internal means of redress have not been exhausted and the complaint is irreceivable. For this reason, the complaint should be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4103


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him mission status during the first six months of his assignment to a field post.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    [A] complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits. As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective (see Judgment 3758, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4075


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;



  • Judgment 4074


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to review or amend the separation agreement offered to him and to terminate his appointment without the appropriate financial package.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the internal consideration of his grievance. The Global Fund argues this claim is irreceivable. Routinely and necessarily such a claim can only first be made in the Tribunal. The claim is receivable. The Global Fund contends the internal appeal process took 11 months, which was reasonable. The complainant draws attention to the fact that there was a period of nearly 18 months between the public delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment and the final decision of the Executive Director. Even taking that longer period, significant periods of time can be attributed to the conduct of the complainant or his counsel, particularly the time taken to respond to a Global Fund proposal concerning informal discussions to resolve the matter in the first half of 2015. The internal appeal took approximately 11 months. This is a lengthy period but, in all the circumstances including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, it was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaint, namely that the complainant, by signing the separation agreement, waived his right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainant contends that he signed this agreement as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated his consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3424, consideration 12). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreement, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainant’s pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaints, namely that the complainants, by signing the separation agreements, waived their right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainants contend that they signed these agreements as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated their consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3423, consideration 13). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreements, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainants’ pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4065


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 4060


    127th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see, for example, Judgment 2856, under 5). As a result of the reinstatement of the complainant’s firearm authorisation, the impugned decision is no longer operative and, consequently, the complainant’s claim for the reversal of “the decision to temporarily remove [his] authority to carry a firearm or, in case this cannot be granted, reinstate [his] authorisation to carry a firearm” has been overtaken by the 22 February 2017 decision. The fact that the impugned decision is no longer in force, however, does not resolve the other live issues between the parties concerning the lawfulness of that decision and the consequences of that decision for which the complainant claims moral damages.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856

    Keywords:

    cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4059


    127th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to affiliate her to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant does not dispute the grounds on which the finding of irreceivability was made. However, she asks the Tribunal to consider her complaint as an “exceptional case”. The relevant case law of the Tribunal consistently states:
    “Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable ‘if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits’ [...].”
    (Judgment 3758, under 10; see also Judgment 3687, under 9, and the cases cited therein.)
    In Judgment 3758, under 11, the Tribunal added:
    “As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. ‘When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective.’ (See Judgment 3439, under 4.)”
    However, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of the strict adherence to the applicable time limits. In Judgment 3687, under 10, the Tribunal stated:
    “[I]n very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
    (See also Judgment 3758, under 12.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405, 3439, 3687, 3758

    Keywords:

    delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 4006


    126th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.

    Considerations 9-11

    Extract:

    At the forefront of the ICC’s contention about receivability are the provisions of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Those provisions define, establish and limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s contention is receivable, notwithstanding that no point has been raised before and within the internal consideration of the complainant’s Complaint about the receivability of the complaint. Plainly enough, the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as established by Article II of its Statute, can only arise at a point when a complainant seeks to invoke that jurisdiction.
    Article II is concerned with the vindication and enforcement of individual rights or privileges of staff members of international organisations, conferred either by normative legal documents regulating or governing their employment, or conferred by the terms of their appointment. Similarly, the Article is concerned with the enforcement of obligations or duties of international organisations towards their staff. An overlay on these rights, privileges, duties and obligations is the Tribunal’s case law. These rights or privileges and duties or obligations may attach to individual staff members or a particular class of staff members which, obviously enough, can, and often does, include all staff members. This description of the scope of Article II can be expressed in a variety of ways. But this description captures the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Article II. There are many judgments of the Tribunal that address this question including, recently, Judgments 3526, consideration 5, 3642, consideration 11, and 3760, consideration 6.
    Articles 46 and 47 of the Rome Statute together with the implementing Rules in the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, are not intended to confer on members of staff, and do not do so, a particular right or privilege for the benefit of staff; nor are they intended to impose, and do not do so, a particular duty or obligation directed to members of staff. Rather, those provisions are intended to benefit the world at large. That is to say, they are provisions intended to preserve the integrity of the ICC as an international court by imposing a standard of conduct on the judges and senior officials of the Court, creating a mechanism for the enforcement of those standards and, additionally, affording anyone with an interest the opportunity to enforce those standards. They are not provisions of a character comprehended by Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute insofar as they are invoked by staff members other than, potentially, the officials directly affected, such as the Registrar, the Prosecutor or an individual judge. Accordingly, proceedings invoking Articles 46 and 47 alone and seeking their enforcement are not within the Tribunal’s competence.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3526, 3642, 3760

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3947


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Regarding Article VII, paragraph 1,[of the Tribunal's Statute] consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations. The following was stated, for example, in Judgment 1653, consideration 6: “According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint ‘shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations’. So where the staff regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the regulations or implementing rules.”
    In the same vein, it was stated in Judgment 1469, consideration 16, that to satisfy the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, that internal means of redress must be exhausted, the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but she or he must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure.
    It has also been stated that a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to lodging a complaint with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3458, consideration 7: “It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgments 3190, under 9, and 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
    There are limited exceptions to the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1. The following was relevantly stated in Judgment 3714, consideration 12:
    “The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute that internal remedies be exhausted will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgments 2912, consideration 6, 3397, consideration 1, and 3505, consideration 1). Moreover, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the above conditions are satisfied [...].”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1469, 1653, 3458, 3714

    Keywords:

    exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    With respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. It was relevantly stated in Judgment 3559, consideration 3, that:
    “Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”. It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to extend this period of time set forth by the Statute. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, this time limit is an objective matter of fact and the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint filed after it has expired. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for the time bar. The ninety-day period begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision. Where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see Judgments 2250, under 8, 3393, under 1, and 3467, under 2).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3559

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3942


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In the complaint form filed with the Tribunal, the complainant identifies this opinion and recommendation of the Appeals Board, having regard to the date of decision identified on the form, as the impugned decision. [...] It appears, from the material before the Tribunal, that no decision was made by the Director-General following, and based upon, the Appeals Board report in the period of a little over three months between the issuing of the Appeals Board report and the filing of the complaint in the Tribunal. However, UNESCO does not challenge the receivability of the complaint in these proceedings, which can be taken to be an agreement that the matter can be dealt with by the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint form; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3938


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    [The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
    As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 3936


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who held the grade P-5 post of Head of UNESCO’s National Office in Kinshasa, challenges the decision to transfer her to Paris.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that a complaint is not 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. In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, to satisfy this requirement a complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal but must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure (see, for example, Judgment 3296, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3296

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

< 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