Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 735

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 | next >

• 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 3945

  
  125th Session, 2018
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

  
  
  

• 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 3828

  
  124th Session, 2017
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein her or his intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgment 3068, under 16, and the case law cited therein).
  Since the complainant clearly expressed her intention to challenge her status as defined in the decision of 5 April 2012, which adversely affected her and which formed the subject of that complaint, the letter of 7 June 2013 must be regarded as an appeal within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law and as a complaint within the meaning of Article 91, paragraph 2, of the General Conditions of Employment. Eurocontrol was therefore right to treat it as such.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3068
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• 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 3686

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  [T]he case law is clear that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas before the Tribunal even if those
  pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see Judgment 2571, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571
  

  Keywords:

  internal appeal; new 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, 36, 37 | next >