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 164


    25th Session, 1970
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    When first appointed in May 1951, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.

    Keywords:

    date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;



  • Judgment 163


    24th Session, 1970
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "According to Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint submitted to the Tribunal shall not be receivable unless a final decision is impugned, the person concerned having exhausted such other means of resisting as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complaint is not directed against any decision taken by the Director-General. The complainant impugns a decision of 11 March; in fact no administrative authority of the organization took any decision on that date concerning the complainant; 11 March is the date on which he appealed to the internal appeals body. The complaint is therefore irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 158


    24th Session, 1970
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant's services terminated [...] as a result of his resignation, he was still entitled to challenge his grading during an earlier period."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint; post classification; receivability of the complaint; resignation; separation from service;



  • Judgment 156


    24th Session, 1970
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that the complainant has not impugned a final decision after exhausting the internal appeal procedure and that he cannot validly plead that he was unaware of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and Rules concerning internal appeal procedures to justify his direct complaint to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 147


    23rd Session, 1970
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns decisions of the Secretary-General without previously having exhausted the internal means of appeal provided for in the Staff Rules. "It follows that the submissions in his complaint in respect of the aforesaid decisions are not receivable."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Although a provision of the Staff Rules allows the Appeals Board "in exceptional cases [to] waive the time-limit, the fact [...] that [the complainant], as a result of a mistake committed in good faith, addressed himself directly to the Administrative Tribunal, was not regarded by the [...] Appeals Board as an exceptional circumstance covered by the above-mentioned provision."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; exception; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 146


    23rd Session, 1970
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant did not submit an appeal to the internal appeals body before filing his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal. "He had therefore failed to exhaust the internal procedure available to him before appealing to the Tribunal." The complainant did not obtain the Director-General's leave to appeal directly to the Tribunal as required by the applicable provision. His claims are dismissed.

    Keywords:

    acceptance; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 140


    22nd Session, 1969
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "After the close of the written proceedings the complainant communicated to the Tribunal a statement [...] signed [by a third party]. In principle the Tribunal takes account of all documents produced before the opening of the session at which the relevant case is to be judged. In the case at issue, the Tribunal has no reason not to take the statement into consideration. At the most it might ask the complainant to certify its authenticity, but this is unnecessary since the document in question cannot affect the outcome of the proceedings."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 130


    21st Session, 1969
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    Failing any action to resist the decision within the prescribed time-limits, the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment became final and can no longer be challenged; consequently, all the complainant's links with the organization were severed from the date on which his contract expired.

    Keywords:

    complaint; consequence; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; time limit;



  • Judgment 126


    20th Session, 1968
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The organization contends that the present complaint has become irrelevant because of the termination of the complainant's employment after the filing of the complaint. "But the legality of the decision to terminate, which is also attacked in a complaint before the Administrative Tribunal, depends on the disposal of the present complaint. Moreover, if the present complaint were held to be well founded, the complainant could claim damages even if her complaint concerning termination were to be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; judicial review; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 123


    20th Session, 1968
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; decision; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;



  • Judgment 122


    20th Session, 1968
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The decision not to renew his contract was notified to the complainant on 6 March and again on 15 June following his request for a review. On 25 June the complainant addressed a request to the organisation based on new arguments and directed to securing reconsideration of his case. Following this request the Director-General communicated to the complainant on 14 August a decision definitely confirming the previous decision, but in part on new grounds. The time limit for the filing of the complaint began to run only from the date of the notification of the decision of 14 August.

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; complaint; confirmatory decision; contract; date; date of notification; decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 117


    19th Session, 1968
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    If the signatory to the contract of employment had authority from the organization, the complainant could be held to be employed by the organization. "Authority is a clear and precise legal conception and if it cannot be found to exist it is not permissible to take refuge in imprecise expressions, such as that the credit union [which employs the complainant] was a body "within the framework of [the organization]". Accordingly, the complainant not being employed by [the organization], and so not one of its staff members, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction".

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; delegated authority; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 114


    18th Session, 1967
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complainant failed to appeal against the impugned decision to the internal appeals body, contrary to statutory procedure. He has not therefore "exhausted the means at his disposition, under the applicable staff regulations. Accordingly his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 112


    18th Session, 1967
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "A plea to quash can be directed only against a decision, that is, against an act deciding a question in a specific case." A performance report embodies no decision capable of being rescinded. A complaint seeking such relief is not receivable.

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; competence of tribunal; condition; decision; performance report; probation report; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 111


    17th Session, 1967
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "It is a rule generally recognised by the courts that a complainant is not entitled to refer to the courts in a single complaint two or more different decisions having no connection with each other. In such a case, the court can examine the complaint only in respect of the first decision specified therein."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 108


    17th Session, 1967
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Once the complainant did not ask for a hearing within the [...] time limit provided for [under the material provision], the appeal which he later instituted [...] was not receivable [...]. Consequently [...] insofar as it sought to resist the Director-General's decision to accept the opinion of the Appeals Board recognising that it was irreceivable the complaint is unfounded and must be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 91


    16th Session, 1966
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "As regards the arguments based on equity which the complainant puts forward in favour of a review of his grievances, the Tribunal cannot take these arguments into account since the time limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal is mandatory; it is binding on the complainant and cannot be extended by the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 87


    15th Session, 1965
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The complainant's counsel, after the close of the last public hearing, submitted ten documents which had not been communicated to the agent of the organization and upon which he therefore had no opportunity to comment. In conformity with the principle that each party shall be fully heard on all the evidence admitted, these documents were excluded from the dossier on which the Tribunal took its decision."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 85


    14th Session, 1965
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    A letter sent by the organisation to the complainant effectively rescinded the decision and therefore invalidated the appeal, insofar as it is directed against that decision. It also "gave [the complainant] an opportunity of choosing between three possible courses of action; on this point the letter itself involved no decision and could not therefore be submitted to the Administrative Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 82


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The interveners [A and B], to whom [the] judgment [the application of which is requested] had awarded reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them, are holders of rights liable to be affected by the present judgment [...]. On the other hand, the interveners [X, Y and Z], insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right of that kind, and the staff association has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    cause of action; injury; intervention; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant requests compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the delay by the organisation in giving effect to the judgment. Intervenors x,y and z, insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right liable to be affected by the present judgment; they are also acting on behalf of the staff, who have no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    cause of action; intervention; lack of injury; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The interveners submitted a document on 2 April. On 10 April the judgment was delivered, after the public hearing of 6 April. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage; "that does not necessarily mean that interveners are entitled to invoke up to the day of the proceedings any facts, evidence and new documents. [The material document] deals solely with points of law and raises no new points. Consequently [...] the organisation, [which] learned of this legal opinion three days before the oral proceedings began, has been able usefully to discuss the arguments and the conclusions. The [adversarial] procedure has thus been [followed]".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; intervention; oral proceedings; 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: 20.10.2020 ^ top