ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

No cause of action (93,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: No cause of action
Total judgments found: 72

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4120


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Staff representatives have a legitimate and important role in the functioning of international organisations. However there are limits to that role, at least as may involve rights enforceable in proceedings in the Tribunal. In its reasoning the IAC referred to Judgment 2919 of this Tribunal in support of a widely cast role for staff representatives. However, the effect of that judgment may have been misunderstood and, in any event, the Tribunal has recently indicated that Judgment 2919, if read too widely, went beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence (see Judgment 3515, consideration 3). In the present case, whether Article 120(a) of the Service Regulations had been applied correctly or incorrectly to the individual the subject of the internal audit was not a matter in respect of which the complainant had an interest capable of being pursued in a complaint to this Tribunal. Nor did the complainant have an enforceable right to obtain the results of the internal audit. Accordingly the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint in the Tribunal is irreceivable (see Judgment 3426, consideration 16). Thus, the complaint should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3426, 3515

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4061


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to cancel the appointment of an external candidate following a recruitment procedure and not to organise a new procedure open to internal candidates only.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member’s right to challenge the appointment of another staff member to a particular post is not contingent on whether she or he had a relatively good chance of being the successful candidate (see Judgment 2832, under 8, and the cited cases). However, the same case law also establishes that the individual concerned must be eligible to occupy the post, otherwise it could not be said that the individual was legally affected by the disputed appointment. As the complainant was not eligible to apply for appointment to the post at the relevant time, his complaint does not disclose a cause of action and must be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; no cause of action;



  • 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 3648


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    WIPO’s argument that the Tribunal itself could have raised the issue of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action is of no avail. Indeed, although it is well-established case law that, because they involve the application of mandatory provisions, issues of receivability can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion (see, for example, Judgments 2567, under 6, 3139, under 3, and the case law cited therein), the Tribunal may only do so when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted. That is plainly not the case here, especially if one considers only the submissions as they stood before the surrejoinder was filed, which is how the issue must be approached here.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2567, 3139

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3647


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3496


    120th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of his suspension and the reprimand that he subsequently received.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "As the disputed reprimand has [...] been withdrawn, the complaint is moot and hence irreceivable insofar as it seeks the quashing of that disciplinary measure."

    Keywords:

    no cause of action;



  • Judgment 3494


    120th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "[Eurocontrol] submits that, when the complaint was filed, it concerned a post that no longer existed. Referring to the precedent established by the Tribunal in Judgment 1357, under 11, it asserts that Eurocontrol was “free to withdraw a notice of vacancy at any time”. In its view, the complaint is therefore without object and must be dismissed as irreceivable.
    The Tribunal considers that, even if Eurocontrol did in fact withdraw the vacancy notice, given that it did so after the complainant had been excluded from the competition procedure and after she had lodged her internal complaint, that complaint did have substance at the time it was filed and the decision to dismiss it produced effects open to review by the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1357

    Keywords:

    no cause of action;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1549, under 9, 2163, under 1, or 3209, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 2163, 3209

    Keywords:

    no cause of action; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3449


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal considers that the complainant does have cause for action, since he relies on a breach of the right, recognised in the Staff Regulations, of representatives of the Staff Union to be notified of a proposal to open a competition. [...]
    Moreover, the Organization is wrong to submit that the complaint concerning the appointment to the grade P.3 post has become moot because that post has been abolished, since the appointment in question produced effects."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; no cause of action;



  • Judgment 3427


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

    Consideration 33

    Extract:

    The Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, where a “complainant has failed to demonstrate that the contested administrative actions have caused him any injury to his health, financially or otherwise, or that it is liable to cause him injury, the complainant does not have a cause of action”. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action. The complainants have not shown that the decision at issue has or is liable to cause them injury, therefore, they have not established a cause of action.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168

    Keywords:

    lack of injury; no cause of action;

    Consideration 34

    Extract:

    The Tribunal concludes that as decision CA/D 14/08 has not been individually implemented and the complainants have not shown a cause of action, the complaints against this decision will be dismissed.

    Keywords:

    individual decision; lack of injury; no cause of action;



  • Judgment 3270


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the date on which her classification in grade G5 took effect.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case pending; no cause of action;



  • 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 25

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, no damages will be ordered where a decision does not hamper a career and the matter which was complained of has been withdrawn (see Judgment 1380, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    decision; evidence; lack of evidence; lack of injury; material damages; moral damages; no cause of action; professional injury; withdrawal of decision;

    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 2792


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Having launched an internal appeal, a staff member is entitled to know whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed. The fact that certain aspects of the relief sought may have become moot does not absolve the head of an organisation from making a determination on the merits of the appeal."

    Keywords:

    compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; executive head; internal appeal; international civil servant; no cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; right;



  • Judgment 2074


    91st Session, 2001
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. "The complainant claims the right of preference which is accorded, when candidates are equally competent, to internal applicants [...] In view of its objective, which is to secure the best possible employees for an organisation, equality of competence applies to all the abilities required of an employee, both professional and personal. The Secretary-General did not overstep his discretionary authority by concluding that the overall aptitude of the candidates was not equal. The plea must therefore fail."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; condition; discretion; executive head; internal candidate; no cause of action; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; refusal; right; same;



  • Judgment 2065


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    "In this application the complainant is challenging the decision of 31 August 2000 [...] However, the President's new decision of 11 April 2001 [...] has deprived the application of a cause of action. Since he claims costs, it must be determined whether the complainant did have a cause of action at the time of filing this application on 11 October 2000."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; cause of action; claim; costs; date; decision; executive head; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1520


    81st Session, 1996
    World Tourism Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainants are challenging a "decision refusing their claim to a promise from the Organization to preserve the rights they had under the old Staff Regulations and Rules. Any decisions that may be taken to give effect to the general rules will be challengeable provided that there is some actual dispute for the Tribunal to rule on. Here there is none. The complainants cite no individual decision that causes them injury. They may not contrive such dispute by seeking promises from the Organization."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1431


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The impugned decision having been withdrawn and declared null and void by its author, "whatever his reasons for doing so may have been, the only possible inference is [...] that the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint is therefore irreceivable." The Tribunal need not rule on the substantive question he raises in the absence of any substantive dispute between the parties.

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1394


    78th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "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."

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; cause of action; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 1357


    77th Session, 1994
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The organisation is free to withdraw a notice of vacancy at any time, even when, as in this case, the process of selection has gone quite far. The conclusion is that the complainant's internal appeal disclosed no cause of action at the time of filing and that his complaint must fail for the same reason, there being no need to entertain his arguments on the merits."

    Keywords:

    competition; discretion; internal appeal; no cause of action; organisation's interest; post; procedure; receivability of the complaint; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 1126


    71st Session, 1991
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 and 6

    Extract:

    The complainant originally claimed 5001 French francs which she said were mistakenly deducted from her termination indemnity. The Organization having acknowledged its mistake, it paid her the disputed amount after she had filed her complaint. Under the circumstances the Tribunal need not entertain the claim. However, she is entitled to an award of costs.

    Keywords:

    case pending; costs; no cause of action; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 1102


    71st Session, 1991
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "According to Article 7 and Appendix II of the Rules of court the complainant must make clear in the statement of his claims what his case is about and submit a brief setting out the facts and his arguments in support of those claims. The complainant has failed to explain in comprehensible terms what it is he wants or to file any legal plea in support".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 AND APPENDIX II OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; vague claim;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.06.2019 ^ top