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 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;



  • Judgment 3254


    116th Session, 2014
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint was considered irreceivable on the ground that it was time-barred.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 3247


    116th Session, 2014
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was on reimbursable loan from UNOPS to the Global Fund, when she was notified of the non-renewal of her contract for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "In a case such as the present, jurisdiction is limited and defined by organisations submitting to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the complainant being an official (or former official) of an organisation that has so submitted (see Judgments 2503, consideration 4, and 3049, consideration 4). The complainant was not an official of the Global Fund at any relevant time. She was an official of UNOPS, which has not submitted to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the complainant’s complaint save for determining whether it has jurisdiction. The complaint is therefore not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2503, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; official; organisation; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 3222


    115th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to disclose some documents related to the procedure concerning his claim for compensation for a service-incurred illness.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "While the Tribunal’s case law recognises a need to apply Article VII(1) of its Statute with some flexibility (see, for example, Judgments 2360 and 2457), there are no decisions which support the view that a claim about a discrete subject can be introduced at a late stage in an internal appeal about an entirely different subject and the fact that it has been satisfies the requirement that internal appeals have been exhausted before a complaint about the different subject matter can be litigated in the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360, 2457

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3209


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.

    Considerations 13 and 14

    Extract:

    The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
    "[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
    The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3198


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the withdrawal from his personal file of the warnings concerning his productivity.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[A] complaint will be irreceivable if a complainant is not adversely affected by the impugned decision. Accordingly, in the context of staff assessment reports, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1674, under consideration 6(a): “a complaint is irreceivable when the decision at issue is not one that adversely affects the complainant. A decision is an act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect on the staff member’s status: see Judgment 532 […]. The complainant suffers no injury from having to wait for a later decision which he may impugn, [...]. Similarly, an internal appeal, followed by a complaint, is not receivable when the organisation’s rules prescribe some formality to be completed first (see Judgment 468 […] concerning ‘something which is only one step in a complex procedure and of which only the final outcome is subject to appeal’).”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "[A] cause of action no longer exists when the action that is complained of is withdrawn. Thus, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 1394, under 4, in which the EPO was the defendant: “At the date of filing […] the decision [the complainant] is impugning did indisputably cause [him] injury and he was free to challenge it as he saw fit. Yet, though his claim to quashing did then serve some purpose it no longer does so since at his own instance the decision has been withdrawn. There is of course no question of quashing a decision that no longer exists and therefore has no effect in law. So the claim to the quashing of the decision must fail.”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1394

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3190


    114th Session, 2013
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract, failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[The complainant's] assertion that she did not file an appeal before the Centre’s ad hoc Appellate Body because it could not be considered to be independent and impartial must be rejected. 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 Judgment 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). The complaint is therefore irreceivable."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3180


    114th Session, 2013
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from a salary adjustment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."

    Keywords:

    amount; claim; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 3160


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255

    Keywords:

    estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;



  • Judgment 3139


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Union regrets that the internal appeal procedure [...] was not completed, but it raises no objection to receivability on that account.
    The Tribunal automatically examines the receivability of complaints filed with it. [...]. In Judgment 2892, the Tribunal held that the provisions of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing internal appeals did not provide for appeals by former staff members. In such circumstances, where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process (see for example Judgment 2840, under 21). Hence the Tribunal will not find that the complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892

    Keywords:

    former official; iloat statute; internal appeal; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3136


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal, to be receivable claims must relate to decisions involving the terms of a staff member’s appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The Tribunal observes that the complainant’s involvement in the selection process for the relevant post ended in April 2004, when he was informed that he had not been shortlisted for an interview. He did not challenge that decision when it was rendered and he does not allege now that it was improperly taken. Subsequent to the complainant’s elimination from the applicant pool, the selection panel erred by failing to refer Mr S.’s name to the Regional Director. Mr S. was able, on the basis of that error, to appeal successfully the decision appointing Mr K. to the post. The complainant did not challenge Mr K.’s appointment at the time. The subsequent decision to resume the selection process from the stage of the Regional Director’s consideration of the names referred to him by the selection panel did not concern the complainant; he had already been validly screened out of the process at that point. It follows that it cannot be said that the decision in any way engaged the terms of the complainant’s appointment or breached the Staff Regulations.

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3132


    113th Session, 2012
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3129


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The [...] decisions contained in the Director-General’s bulletin of 27 February 2006, namely the appointment of the Officer-in-Charge of PSM/HRM as Unit Chief ad interim SSR, and the advertisement, both internally and externally, of the post of Unit Chief P-5 SSR, did not cause the complainant immediate harm as none of them denied her the opportunity of being eventually appointed to the aforementioned post. It was only with the final decision to appoint Mr I. that the complainant lost the opportunity to be appointed to that post and the injury to her became evident.

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3118


    113th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, the receivability of a complaint does not depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules and regulations applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract."

    Keywords:

    lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3116


    113th Session, 2012
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
    "It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainant’s requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules

    Keywords:

    complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Organization argues that the complainant's internal appel was irreceivable, because the issues raised in it were determined by the Tribunal in its judgment on one of his earlier complaints, and that the present complaint is therefore barred by res judicata.
    "As explained in Judgment 2316, under 11: "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard." A decision as to the "rights and liabilities of the parties" necessarily involves a judgment on the merits of the case. Where, as here, a complaint is dismissed as irreceivable, there is no judgment on the merits and, thus, no "final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties". Accordingly, the present complaint is not barred by res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2316

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3080


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "[T]he rule laid down in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal that internal means of redress must first be exhausted does not apply to a claim for compensation for moral injury, which constitutes a claim for consequential relief which the Tribunal has the power to grant in all circumstances (see Judgment 2609, under 10, or Judgment 2779, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2609, 2779

    Keywords:

    iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;



  • Judgment 3034


    111th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be emphasised in this respect that [...] the conditions governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. As was recently recalled in Judgment 2863, which was delivered in a case also concerning Eurocontrol, an rganisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal states that, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must […] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published”. It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 of the Staff Regulations to set a different time limit for filing a complaint by specifying that that limit is three months instead of ninety days. Moreover the Tribunal’s case law indicates that the time limit laid down in the above-mentioned Article VII, paragraph 2, starts to run on the day after, and not on the day on which, the impugned decision is taken (see, for example, Judgment 2244, under 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2244

    Keywords:

    iloat statute; late filing; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [A]ttention must be drawn to the fact that the rules concerning the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of lodging a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file a complaint “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. When an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681). As it is not disputed that, in the instant case, the Agency had forwarded the complainants’ internal complaints to the Joint Committee for Disputes within this prescribed period of time, the persons concerned were wrong in believing that they could challenge the implied rejection of these complaints.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; 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