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 2825


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Because the letter [...] must be construed as meaning that a final decision would only be taken on the complainant's internal appeal after receipt of the opinion of the Internal Appeals Committee, it did not convey a final decision. As Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute allows only for complaints with respect to final decisions, the complaint is irreceivable. The matter must proceed before the Internal Appeals Committee."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2823


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant relies on his salary slips, that reliance is misplaced. It is correct, as pointed out in Judgment 1798, that «pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal». However, they cannot be challenged as new decisions if they merely confirm a decision that was taken at some earlier time and outside the time limits in which an appeal may be brought."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; decision; individual decision; new time limit; pay slip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2822


    107th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In 2006 Eurocontrol approved a revision of the conditions of employment which redefined the functions and grades of Flight Data Operators. The complainant seeks, inter alia, renegotiated employment conditions and the award of temporary B4 grades to all Flight Data Operators.
    "[The] Tribunal cannot entertain the complainant's claim that all Flight Data Operators should be granted B4 grades [...]. [The] complainant alleges no breach of his employment conditions or of the applicable Staff Rules or Regulations. And as pointed out in Judgment 1852, 'a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; general decision; individual decision; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2821


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 to 10

    Extract:

    The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
    "The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
    The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.

    Keywords:

    contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;



  • Judgment 2820


    107th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784

    Keywords:

    decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 2818


    107th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2011 the Tribunal stated the following: «A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits [...], nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken [...].»"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011

    Keywords:

    decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2816


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that: «Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment.» (See in particular Judgment 350.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 350, 2580

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; receivability of the complaint; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2811


    106th Session, 2009
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 11

    Extract:

    "In an attempt to show that her complaint is receivable the complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal to the Board of Appeal or Grievance Panel would not have served any practical purpose [...].
    The Tribunal will not accept this line of argument, since to do so would be tantamount to allowing a staff member, on his or her own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed.
    Apart from the fact that this solution would conflict directly with the terms of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it would belie the actual point of making internal appeals obligatory, which is what justifies this provision. However, as the Tribunal has already emphasised, [...] the purpose of the requirement that internal means of redress be exhausted is not only to ensure that staff members do actually avail themselves of any opportunities they may have within an organisation for obtaining redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal, but also to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a staff member lodges a complaint, to have at its disposal a file supplemented by information from the records of the internal appeal procedure."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. Relying on various Tribunal judgments where complainants were deemed to have exhausted internal means of redress when it transpired that the latter would be inconclusive, she contends that she was likewise in a situation where she was entitled to turn directly to the Tribunal.
    "The complainant is mistaken in believing that she may be deemed in this case to have exhausted internal means of redress. The precedents to which she refers [...] refer to cases where, owing to the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings, or the organisation's wrongful attempts to impede the examination of such an appeal, the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted would have paralysed the complainant's exercise of his or her right to have access to the Tribunal. However, as a general rule, and according to the same line of precedent, this departure from the application of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal will be accepted only where complainants have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to have their internal appeal effectively examined, so that they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for a failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available within an organisation. But, this is not the case here where, on the contrary, the complainant quite simply refrained from filing such an appeal and therefore took it upon herself not to comply with this precondition for filing a complaint with the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1829, 1968, 2039

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to challenge the Director-General's decision before the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that, bearing in mind the purely advisory nature of this body, the Director-General could have confirmed her initial decision, no matter what recommendation was made to her.
    "The fact that the recommendations of the Board of Appeal are not binding on the decision-making authority does not mean that they have no weight in the internal appeals procedure, since the Director-General has a legal duty to give such recommendations due consideration and, according to the Tribunal's case law, can lawfully depart from them only for clear and cogent reasons."

    Keywords:

    complaint; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that her internal appeal could not be examined with due objectiveness and impartiality and she indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642 that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings.
    "Although the complainant indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642, delivered on 11 July 2007, that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings, this judgment should not be construed as general criticism of the way such panels operate."

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "Some of [the complainant's] requests clearly lie outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This is true, for example, of the requests that the Tribunal order the imposition of disciplinary measures on staff members of the Organization, that the complainant be sent a public letter of apology [...] or that a management audit of her department be conducted by independent experts. This is also true of the request that the Tribunal order the Organization to take steps to ensure that the complainant's immediate supervisor will no longer supervise her."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 968, 1591, 2605

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2798


    106th Session, 2009
    International Organisation of Vine and Wine
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
    "It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2796


    106th Session, 2009
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
    "None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720

    Keywords:

    claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2780


    106th Session, 2009
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 2755


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant challenges an appointment on the grounds that it was made without a competition, or even a call for candidatures. She filed her complaint both as an ILO official and in her capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee. The defendant contends that the complaint is irreceivable insofar as it has been filed on behalf of the Staff Union Committee. "The Tribunal considers that the debate concerning the receivability of the complaint, insofar as it was filed by the complainant in her capacity as Chairperson of the Office's Staff Union Committee, has no bearing on the outcome of proceedings, since the complaint is receivable having been filed by an official with locus standi."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720

    Keywords:

    apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2742


    105th Session, 2008
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 44

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal issues binding orders, not recommendations as sought by the complainant. Additionally, the Tribunal has no power to order a party to apologise."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2740


    105th Session, 2008
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The letter of 29 August 2006 must be deemed to constitute an explicit decision to refuse to rule on the request submitted by the complainant [...]. Such a decision may be brought before the Tribunal only after the means of redress open to the complainant have been exhausted (Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute)." The complainant did not exhaust all internal means of redress. "Consequently, the complaint would, in the normal course of events, be irreceivable. [...] In the present case, however, such an approach would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, in view of the content of the letter of 29 August 2006, by which UNESCO notified the complainant of its refusal to take a decision, the complainant had good grounds to consider that any internal appeal would have proved a hollow and meaningless formality. [...] The complainant was therefore entitled to have direct recourse to the Tribunal, after rightly concluding that the letter of 29 August 2006 contained an implicit waiver of the requirement that she first exhaust internal means of redress. It follows that the complaint cannot be declared irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2730


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "All issues of receivability raised may [...] remain undecided because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."

    Keywords:

    complaint; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2725


    105th Session, 2008
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[A] complainant is entitled to challenge before the Tribunal a decision that confers benefits on third parties if it may result in unequal treatment to his detriment."

    Keywords:

    decision; equal treatment; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2722


    105th Session, 2008
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because 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 a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2715


    104th Session, 2008
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2708


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    "The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
    The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
    The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
    The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; same; staff representative; staff union; 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: 07.08.2020 ^ top