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: 682

< 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 3542


    120th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3445


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints are dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes that as the complaints were filed with the Tribunal beyond the ninety-day time limit provided in Article VII of the Statute, the complaints are time-barred and irreceivable."

    Keywords:

    late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 3441


    119th Session, 2015
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law provides, in effect, that a complainant cannot ask the Tribunal to consider issues which were not a part of the case in the internal appeal proceedings. This is because if those issues were not before the internal appellate body for consideration they would be irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires. (See, for example, Judgment 2808, under 9.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2808

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; new claim; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]ll of these and other issues which call into question decisions that are made on the basis of the UNJSPF Regulations are irreceivable in the Tribunal as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under UNIDO Staff Regulation 12.2(b).

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3435


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complaints were irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complainants assert that they did their utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal appeals procedure and that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, they were allowed to file directly with the Tribunal as the requirement to exhaust all internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralyzing the exercise of their rights. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even though the submission of the Organisation’s position paper was already delayed by the time the complainants
    wrote to the IAC Chairman in December 2009, and the additional six months for the expected date of submission could be considered excessive depending on the circumstances, the complainants were involved in a dialogue with the Organisation which they abruptly ended by applying directly to the Tribunal upon receiving notice of the Organisation’s intent to submit its position paper in mid-2010. Having received confirmation of the Organisation’s intent to continue the internal appeal, the complainants should have either waited for the Organisation’s position paper of June to continue the internal appeal process, or should have requested a more immediate submission date. The Tribunal notes that, though the appeal process was delayed, it was active, and the complainants could have a reasonable expectation of receiving a final decision which they could then contest before the Tribunal if they found it necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider that the complainants had truly done their utmost to pursue their internal appeal and the complaints are considered premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable for failure to exhaust all means of internal redress. As they are irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the Tribunal shall examine neither other issues of receivability, nor the merits of the complaints."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3434


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264

    Keywords:

    complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3428


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; pension; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal will not accept the complainants’ surprising argument that questions pertaining to the nature of the impugned decisions and their cause of action to request the setting aside thereof have no bearing on the receivability of their claims. According to the complainants, the only requirements regarding the receivability of complaints laid down by the Statute of the Tribunal are those mentioned in Article VII, namely that all internal means of redress must have been exhausted, that a final decision must have been taken and that the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal must have been respected. However, these rules concern only the procedural aspect of receivability. Receivability is also governed by Article II of the Statute, which, by defining the nature of disputes which the Tribunal has competence to hear ratione personae and ratione materiae, establishes further rules of receivability pertaining to the substantive aspect thereof. Thus a complaint will be receivable only if it is directed against a decision which is of a kind that may be challenged before the Tribunal and if it is filed by an official who shows a cause of action (see, among innumerable examples, Judgments 1756, under 5, 1786, under 5 and 6, 2379, under 5, or 3136, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1786, 2379, 3136

    Keywords:

    cause of action; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3427


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge a series of decisions concerning pension issues, those being decisions of general application.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [I]t is observed that the Tribunal has, in certain circumstances, “deemed” that the internal means of resisting a decision have been exhausted. However, as the exhaustion of the internal means of resisting a decision is a statutorily mandated requirement of receivability, it is beyond the Tribunal’s competence to waive it.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considered the same receivability argument in Judgment 3426, under 16, and rejected it for the following reasons:
    “The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, ‘[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action’. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint ‘must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations’ (Judgment 3136, under 11).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136, 3426

    Keywords:

    cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3426


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenged decisions relating to tax adjustment for EPO pensioners, but the Tribunal found that those decisions had not caused them any injury.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainants’ position that cause of action is not a question of receivability is rejected. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1756, under 5, “[t]o be receivable a complaint must disclose a cause of action”. There are two aspects to receivability – the procedural aspect found in Article VII of the Statute and the substantive aspect found in Article II. That is, whether the Tribunal is competent to hear the case ratione personae and ratione materiae. Framed another way, Article II requires that a complaint must reveal a cause of action and that the impugned decision is one which is subject to challenge. Under Article II, two thresholds must be met for there to be a cause of action. First, the complainant must be an official of the defendant organization or other person described in Article II, paragraph 6. Second, Article II, paragraph 5, requires that a complaint “must relate to [a] decision involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations” (Judgment 3136, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Articles II and VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 3136

    Keywords:

    cause of action; iloat statute; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3418


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Before addressing the issues raised by the complainant in her brief, it is necessary to address a challenge by WIPO to the receivability of the complaint. [...] WIPO contends that the complaint is not receivable. It does so on a basis that is raised in other cases in this session and which has been raised in the past. The Tribunal’s response to the argument has been consistent. While the completed complaint form was filed on 13 April 2012, the brief was not filed until 17 July 2012. This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power to enable the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules. Article 14 of the Rules also appears to have been engaged. WIPO argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However, the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2) in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, considerations 1 and 2). Whether it is desirable for a Registrar to routinely use the power in this way is another question. WIPO’s challenge to receivability is rejected."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500

    Keywords:

    correction of complaint; late filing; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3399


    119th Session, 2015
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's claims were all irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3383


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant has never been an official of CERN and did not impugn a decision affecting his rights, his complaint is summarily dismissed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3382


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3381


    118th Session, 2014
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground that the complainant was not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "As there was no meeting of minds between the parties concerning an appointment and the complainant did not become a staff member of IOM and, therefore, not an official for the purpose of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complaint is clearly irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    appointment; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; official; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3368


    118th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s employment under short-term contracts was unlawful and that the Organisation failed to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal [...] rejects the ILO’s contention that the complaint’s claim for the conversion of her short-term contract is receivable only to the extent that it relates to her last contract extension for the period from 1 January to 31 May 2010, but is otherwise time-barred. The ILO relies on Judgments 2708 and 2838 as authority for its submission that, in view of the six-month time limit for filing a grievance under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations, the grievance filed on 4 November 2010 is irreceivable as to extensions prior to that of 1 January to 31 May 2010. A similar argument was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3110, under 5. It is sufficient to note that, as earlier indicated, at the material time the complainant was employed under a single contract which was extended several times, and neither the extension of 1 January 2010 nor the decision to apply Rule 3.5 to her gave rise to a new, separate contract. The objection therefore fails."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 3110

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3347


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "Contrary to the Organization’s assertion, the determination of the receivability of an internal appeal itself has no bearing on the receivability of a complaint filed with the Tribunal. The latter is governed by the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, a decision on receivability in an internal appeal is reviewable by the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    late appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3346


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as Staff Committee representatives in the General Advisory Committee, challenge the President’s interpretation of the GAC’s opinion regarding pension contributions.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "As the legal analysis of receivability, merit and damages associated with a claim are inextricably linked to standing, complainants cannot adopt a different position on standing from the one initially taken on the internal appeal."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3345


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, acting as elected staff representatives, in their individual capacities as staff members and on behalf of thirty-six staff members employed under “long-term short-term contracts”, challenge the appropriateness of employment under such contracts and claim certain rights for such employees.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he claims of the Staff Council were a request for a change of policy and policy issues of this type are not justiciable (see Judgment 3225, consideration 6). This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the request was made at a high level of abstraction."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225

    Keywords:

    ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3298


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the conditions of their reassignment and allege unequal treatment.

    Considerations 12 and 16

    Extract:

    The Organization considers that the complainant's claims are so vague that the Tribunal should not rule on them.
    "Apart from anything else, procedural fairness requires that a defendant organisation understands the case advanced by the complainant in order to be able to meet it. It is possible to conceive of situations where the complaint is so vaguely expressed that a defendant organisation is simply unable to respond. This is not so in the present case. Apart from raising the point about the form of the complaint as a threshold issue, the [Organization] has presented its defence on what appears to be a clear understanding of the issues [the complainant] raised and, implicitly, the relief he sought. For these reasons, the Tribunal rejects this aspect of the [Organization]’s pleas. The complaint is receivable."

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; vague claim;



  • Judgment 3291


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;



  • Judgment 3280


    116th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision of Eurocontrol not to organize a promotion exercise for 2010.
    "Her cause of action in challenging the refusal to hold that promotion round cannot depend on the potential outcome of the round."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; promotion; 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: 07.08.2020 ^ top