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 3935


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    UNESCO submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds of its lack of intelligibility. [...] The Tribunal agrees with the Organization that both the structure and the drafting of the complainant’s submissions might have been clearer. However, the complaint is sufficiently intelligible to enable the other party to identify its essential purpose and the main pleas on which the complainant relies. The content of UNESCO’s reply demonstrates, moreover, that it was able to understand fully the complainant’s claims and pleas.
    Following the practice it has developed through its case law dealing with this issue, the Tribunal will hence dismiss this objection to receivability (see, for example, Judgments 3298, under 16, or 3616, under 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298, 3616

    Keywords:

    formal requirements; legal brief; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3924


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the modification of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to him.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3923


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Chair of the Appeal Board to dismiss as time-barred his internal appeal against the non-confirmation of his appointment and his separation while on sick leave.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3906


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her fixed-term appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3905


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3887


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The EPO raises the question of the receivability of the present complaint, noting that the complainant insists on impugning the President’s decision of 6 September 2013 instead of the actual final decision of 21 November 2013. The Tribunal finds that as the complainant filed a request for review of the 6 September decision in accordance with Article 109 of the Service Regulations and has received the final decision of 21 November, which is included in the documentation provided in this case, it may treat the complaint as impugning the actual final decision of 21 November 2013.The complaint is therefore receivable.

    Keywords:

    final decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3873


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims compensation for various injuries that WHO allegedly caused him.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3869


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to abolish his post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 3861


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal points out that the term “decision” means an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see, for example, Judgments 532, under 3, and 3141, under 21). Having examined the two aforementioned emails, one containing a suggestion to the complainant and the other informing her of guidelines applicable within the ICC, it is obvious that they do not constitute administrative decisions. Moreover, in Judgment 2644, under 8, the Tribunal explained that “[t]here are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action [...] as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]).However, where, [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, [...] it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 2629, 2644, 3141

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;



  • Judgment 3761


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge a circular that implements amendments to the Rules of the Medical Benefits Fund.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]n the context of determining the receivability of the complaints, it is an administrative decision of general application. In general, this type of decision is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However, there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights. In the present case, the impugned decision directly and adversely affects the complainants’ rights as it precludes the complainants’ important right to participate in the decision-making process […]. As the complaints satisfy the requirements of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are receivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; general decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3749


    123rd Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement of additional income tax paid by her husband.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative decision may take any form if its existence may be inferred from a factual context demonstrating that it was indeed taken by an officer of the organisation, as is the case here (see, in particular Judgments 2573, under 8, 2629, under 6, and 3141, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2573, 2629, 3141

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3729


    123rd Session, 2017
    Permanent Court of Arbitration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which her appointment was terminated.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Had that point concerning receivability been raised in the internal appeal, it may have had prospects of success in these proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1653, consideration 6, 3181, consideration 11, and 3577, considerations 8 and 9). But it was not raised in the internal appeal and, accordingly, cannot now be relied upon for the first time by the PCA in these proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2255, considerations 12 and 13, and 3160, consideration 14). Accordingly, the PCA’s contention concerning receivability is rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2255, 3160, 3181, 3577

    Keywords:

    estoppel; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3698


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of the Audit Committee of the EPO Administrative Council.

    Considerations 1-2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has jurisdiction under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In consequence, when “[t]he complainant does not allege the non-observance of any of the terms of his appointment or of any of the Staff Regulations applicable to him”, his complaint must be held to be irreceivable (see Judgment 2952, under 3).
    The Tribunal observes that the complainant does not allege any violation of the terms of his appointment or of staff regulations that are applicable to him. His case does not relate to his administrative status but rather to the organisation of the EPO, his employer, for which he is plainly not responsible.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2952

    Keywords:

    cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3674


    122nd Session, 2016
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The objection to receivability based on the contention that the complaint was filed late cannot be accepted, since OTIF has not produced any evidence that would enable the Tribunal to establish that the complainant received the notification of 16 July 2013 before the date specified by him [...].

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 3673


    122nd Session, 2016
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract and the subsequent notification that her contract would not be extended to allow her to use her entitlements to certified sick leave.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3651


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment upon the expiry of his probationary period.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6, the Tribunal reiterated that the time limits for internal appeal procedures serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The Tribunal relevantly rationalized this approach in the following terms: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary, otherwise the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions potentially adversely affecting the staff of international organisations would be put at risk. Flexibility about time limits should not intrude into the Tribunal’s decision-making even if it might be thought to be equitable or fair in a particular case to allow some flexibility. To do otherwise would “impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations” (see Judgment 2722, consideration 3). However, there are some exceptions to this general approach, which have been expressed in the Tribunal’s case law.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 3648


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    WIPO’s argument that the Tribunal itself could have raised the issue of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action is of no avail. Indeed, although 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, for example, Judgments 2567, under 6, 3139, under 3, and the case law cited therein), the Tribunal may only do so when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted. That is plainly not the case here, especially if one considers only the submissions as they stood before the surrejoinder was filed, which is how the issue must be approached here.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2567, 3139

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage, and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3647


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160

    Keywords:

    estoppel; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3646


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General not to allow him to proceed directly to the Tribunal in respect of his appeal against WIPO’s alleged failure to ensure that he was not subjected to intimidation, offensive behaviour or aggression.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Situations can arise where the Tribunal entertains and adjudicates on a complaint where the complainant has not exhausted internal remedies but it is apparent that the internal appeal process has paralysed the exercise of the complainant’s rights (see, for example, Judgment 2039, consideration 4). However, mere dissatisfaction with the composition of the internal appeal body does not found a right to bring a complaint directly to the Tribunal (see Judgment 3190, consideration 9). Nothing advanced by the complainant establishes that he is entitled to bring his grievance directly to the Tribunal. It is true that his grievance, in the most general sense, has subsisted for many years and has already twice been considered by the Tribunal. But that fact does not absolve the complainant from satisfying the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute that the impugned decision is a final decision and that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2039, 3190

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3619


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    The complainant’s arguments on these issues involved no more than a very brief tabulation of the conclusions of the IAC which was said to be “incorporated by reference” into the complainant’s legal brief and a “[maintenance] of [the] argumentation as presented during the internal appeal procedure”. This is an entirely unacceptable way of presenting an argument to the Tribunal and creates the real risk that the Tribunal will not appreciate the arguments advanced (see, for example, Judgments 3434, under 5, 2264, under 3(a), and 3538, under 5). The Tribunal will thus focus on the conclusions of the IAC favourable to the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264, 3434, 3538

    Keywords:

    judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; 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 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top