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: 684

< 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 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;



  • Judgment 2649


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897

    Keywords:

    breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; same; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2636


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2631


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
    Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 185

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 2630


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[A]s held in Judgment 1712, '[t]he necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury'. Moreover, the case law has it that 'receivability does not depend on proving actual and certain injury', all that a complainant need show is that the decision under challenge 'may impair the rights and safeguards that an international civil servant claims under staff regulations or contract of employment' (see Judgment 1330, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 1712

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; decision; effect; injury; official; receivability of the complaint; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2610


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "While it is highly desirable that staff representatives should be allowed to participate in operations to determine their colleagues' remuneration, this can in no way affect the right of each staff member to avail himself or herself of the means of redress which are open to him or her and which constitute a fundamental safeguard for international civil servants. The ICSC is therefore mistaken in believing that it can rely on the theory of estoppel vis-ŕ-vis the complainants by arguing that staff representatives are supposed to act on behalf of all the members of the personnel and that 'their actions should be considered as legally attributable to each and every one of the staff they represent'."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; general principle; icsc decision; internal appeal; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard; salary; scale; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2598


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    "Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.

    In view of the above-mentioned circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.

    The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.

    The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 2583


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to precedent (see for example Judgments 1330 and 2204), staff members have an obvious interest in ascertaining the value of their pension rights as soon as possible, even if they are still serving: the receivability of their action does not depend on proving actual and certain injury, but on their having an interest in obtaining recognition of their future rights, regardless of whether their pleadings are well founded."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 2204

    Keywords:

    amount; case law; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; injury; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; staff member's interest; subsidiary;



  • Judgment 2572


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8 and 9

    Extract:

    As Article VII(1) of the Statute makes clear, a complaint is only receivable if it impugns a decision. If a claim is made, the failure to respond within a specified time or, if no time is specified, a reasonable time will ordinarily be construed as a decision rejecting that claim. However, not every communication in which a complaint is made about a course of action or inaction constitutes a claim, whether for the purposes of Article VII(3) or otherwise; and if no claim is made, the failure to reply does not constitute a decision.
    For a communication to constitute a claim, it must seek a decision on something that can be granted in some meaningful way. [...]

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2567


    101st Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[I]t must be recalled that according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal '[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'. The Tribunal will on its own motion examine whether this condition of receivability is met (see Judgments 60, 1082 and 1095).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1082, 1095

    Keywords:

    application of law ex officio; complaint; condition; decision; iloat; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2562


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 and 6

    Extract:

    The Organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable because the internal appeals, although timely filed with the President of the Office, had not yet been considered by the Appeals Committee at the time when the complaints were filed. "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...] The complaints are [therefore] receivable."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of EPO Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; complaint; date; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; patere legem; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 2527


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "As it has ruled on several occasions (see, for instance, Judgment 1456), the Tribunal may not order an organisation to seek an agreement with any State or institution."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456

    Keywords:

    case law; claim; competence of tribunal; member state; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2503


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The evidence on file shows that the complainant was never an official of Eurocontrol, and the only contracts he has produced are temporary contracts signed with a temporary employment agency [which supplied him to the defendant] and governed by French law. According to Article II of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials or such provisions of the Staff Regulations as are applicable to their case. Since the complainant is not an official of Eurocontrol, and cannot produce any employment contract signed with the latter, it follows, as the Agency rightly contends, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; contract; domestic law; iloat statute; locus standi; non official; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; successive contracts;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant was assigned to the Organisation by temporary employment agencies. "The fact that Eurocontrol relied on its immunity from jurisdiction and on the Tribunal's competence to hear disputes between the Agency and its staff in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the conseil de prud'hommes, cannot deprive it of its right to request that the Tribunal decline jurisdiction in accordance with its Statute."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat statute; municipal court; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; receivability of the complaint; right;



  • Judgment 2494


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2461


    99th Session, 2005
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 1 to 3

    Extract:

    ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
    "The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2439


    99th Session, 2005
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules

    Keywords:

    complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2424


    98th Session, 2005
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 941

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;



  • Judgment 2418


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Although the EPO has disputed the complainants' claim for costs of these proceedings on the basis that their counsel is a full-time EPO staff member, it is appropriate to award each complainant 1,000 euros to cover their out of pocket expenses, time and trouble."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; costs; counsel; 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: 12.08.2020 ^ top