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

Case sent back to organisation (130,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Case sent back to organisation
Total judgments found: 138

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7



  • Judgment 852


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    Faced with the administration's failure to take action on the basis of the Appeals Committee's report, the complainant filed a complaint within the three-month time limit set by Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal. The final decision was later taken, after the expiry of the time limits in the Service Regulations. It follows that the organisation's objections to receivability must be dismissed. The proceedings shall resume on the merits.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    case pending; case sent back to organisation; decision; failure to answer claim; further submissions on the merits; late decision; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; reply confined to receivability; tribunal;



  • Judgment 700


    57th Session, 1985
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    Having been filed before the complainant had exhausted the internal remedies, the complaint is irreceivable. The case "is remitted to the President in order that he may reconsider his decision of 19 February 1985 in the light of Judgment 699 and he is ordered to communicate his reconsidered decision to the complainant within one month."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 699

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; case sent back to organisation; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 574


    51st Session, 1983
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The organisation pleads that the complaint fails by the doctrine of res judicata, in view of the fact that the complainant was an intervener in Judgment No. 365. The plea was dismissed on the grounds that the substance of the two claims was not the same: the first claim challenged a measure which had the force of a rule whereas the second concerned a decision of an individual nature. The case is referred back to the President for a new decision. The Tribunal stressed that the organisation should not have based its reply solely on res judicata, refraining from arguing the merits without having been granted permission to do so by the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 365

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; general decision; individual decision; intervention; reply confined to receivability; res judicata; same purpose;



  • Judgment 522


    49th Session, 1982
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    An objection to receivability resting on the lateness of the complainant's internal appeal fails. The matter should be examined by the Internal Appeals Body on the merits. [The problem is one of copyright.] Compensation for "legal costs incurred to date. The other remedies requested do not arise for consideration at this stage."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; costs; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; reply confined to receivability;



  • Judgment 502


    48th Session, 1982
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant suffers from illnesses which, he alleges, are due to his duties in the organization. Before appealing to the Tribunal, he should have exhausted the internal remedies and appealed to the Advisory Committee; that step was left out and the complaint is therefore not receivable. The complainant is still entitled to put his claims forward at the administrative level. For that purpose the parties need only designate the members of the Medical Board provided for in the Rules.

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; case sent back to organisation; illness; internal remedies exhausted; medical board; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 499


    48th Session, 1982
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The time limit for filing a complaint is ninety days, either after the notification of the express decision or from the expiry of the sixty-day time limit allowed for the taking of a decision by the organisation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; failure to answer claim; further submissions on the merits; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The organisation confined itself to procedural issues. If the defendant considers the complaint to be clearly vexatious, it may apply to the Tribunal, before filing its memorandum, for permission to confine its arguments to the decisive point. "Otherwise [the defendant] will incur the danger that, instead of adjourning, as in the present case, the Tribunal declare the allegations of fact in the complaint to be established."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; case sent back to organisation; condition; further submissions on the merits; reply confined to receivability; tribunal;



  • Judgment 420


    45th Session, 1980
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 1 and 6

    Extract:

    In its Judgment No. 274, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Director-General for reconsideration so that he might, if he thought fit, reprimand the complainant for having acted in such a manner as to lead to an interruption of the proceedings of the Council in committee. "The Tribunal would not have thought it right to dictate to the Director-General the exact form the reprimand should take, nor did the Tribunal in fact do so. The terms of the letter [...] do not exceed what is proper, and in particular do not amount to a censure as distinct from a reprimand."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; reprimand;



  • Judgment 417


    44th Session, 1980
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    There was already a claim for compensation before the internal appeals body and there was no need to make a fresh one. The appeals body "had, without going into the merits, held the claim for compensation to be irreceivable. In Judgment no. 364 the Tribunal ruled that it was receivable. Accordingly, all that was necessary was for the [body in question] to resume the hearing and make a recommendation on the merits."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 364

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; further submissions on the merits; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 355


    41st Session, 1978
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complainants claim that the grading of their posts no longer corresponds to their actual duties and should be reviewed. "That contention may not be submitted directly to the Administrative Tribunal. It should first be put to the Director-General who will take a decision" as prescribed by circular.

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; internal remedies exhausted; post classification; post description;



  • Judgment 272


    36th Session, 1976
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant is entitled to have it declared that she was at the time of her appointment resident at Lima. "But the Tribunal will not decide that she was entitled to 'attendant benefits' [...] This is a question which may be answered differently in the case of different benefits under different rules; the answer may be dependent also upon the relevant facts and circumstances at the time when the benefit becomes due. If and when an allegation is made that any particular benefit has been wrongfully withheld, the Tribunal will decide it upon the facts then presented.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 360

    Keywords:

    appointment; case sent back to organisation; consequence; non-local status; residence;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The interveners have not provided a clear and positive statement of their residence at the time of recruitment. "[T]he cases of the interveners should be remitted to the Director-General so that, in the light of this judgment [...] he may amend the [...] form [...] so as to show in each case the correct and agreed residence immediately prior to appointment with liberty to each intervener to apply to the Tribunal if agreement is not reached."

    Keywords:

    appointment; case sent back to organisation; intervention; residence;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Since the cases of the interveners are to be remitted to the Director-General because of the insufficiency of the evidence that is supplied with them the Tribunal can award no costs in respect of them."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; costs; elements; intervention; lack of evidence; local status; no award of costs; non-local status;



  • Judgment 226


    32nd Session, 1974
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    By Judgment No. 194, the Administrative Tribunal quashed as being based on insufficient grounds the decision not to confirm the complainant's appointment. In execution of that judgment an ad hoc committee was set up to examine the case. In the light of the very full report of that committee, "the Director-General took a considered decision in full knowledge of the facts. The organization has thus corrected the procedural irregularity which led to the quashing of the decision".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 194

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; confirmatory decision; duty to substantiate decision; execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; judgment of the tribunal; probationary period; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 194


    29th Session, 1972
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complainant's plea that the impugned decision should be quashed as being based on insufficient grounds succeeds. "[I]t is [...] for the Director-General to reopen the case and to consider, by such means as he may deem appropriate and after giving a hearing to [the complainant], whether the appraisal made by her immediate supervisor was well-founded and whether the non-confirmation of her appointment could legitimately be based on the provisions" cited.

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; judicial review; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 185


    27th Session, 1971
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complainant inquired whether a refusal decision was final. the absence of a reply from the administration must be considered, by virtue of a general rule of law, as a refusal of the claim. The complainant ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in the Staff Rules to secure "a decision by the Director-General, which decision could alone be impugned before the Administrative Tribunal." [The procedure provides for appeal at the regional level and subsequently at headquarters.]

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; enforcement; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 181


    27th Session, 1971
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he Director-General was at fault in ruling that the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Board was time-barred [...]. The decision impugned must accordingly be quashed." The case is referred back to the organization for a decision on the merits.

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; reply confined to receivability; time bar; tribunal;



  • Judgment 138


    22nd Session, 1969
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The authority in this case has refused to look into the facts of [the complainant's] case because of the self-imposed rule on itself that the maintenance of two households can under no circumstances entitle an expatriate employee to an educational grant. This in the judgment of the Tribunal was an error of law which entailed the non-exercise of a discretion."

    Keywords:

    allowance; case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; education expenses; flaw; marital status; parents separated; refusal;



  • Judgment 124


    20th Session, 1968
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks the rescission of decisions 1) cancelling the loan agreement and 2) deducting sums from his salary until repayment of his debt to the organization. The Tribunal is competent to rule on the second claim for relief. The lawfulness of the second decision depends on the lawfulness of the first. The Director-General accepted the finding of the Appeals Board that it was not competent to consider the appeal concerning cancellation of the loan and dismisses the appeal relating to salary deductions on its merits without going into the first claim. The complainant is referred back for a new decision on all the submissions, after taking account of the opinion of the appeals body.

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; debt; decision quashed; deduction; loan; organisation; salary;



  • Judgment 88


    15th Session, 1965
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary of facts

    Extract:

    "In its Judgment [No. 69] quashing the decision not to confirm the appointment of the complainant at the end of the probationary period on the grounds of failure to comply with the recognised procedure and infringement of the right to be heard, the Tribunal invited the organization to reopen the case, to enable the complainant to exercise his rights, and to consider whether he should be reinstated. At the same time it reserved the complainant's right to claim compensation whether or not he was reinstated." The complainant was not reinstated and he requests the Tribunal to fix compensation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 69

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; material damages; probationary period; procedural flaw; refusal; reinstatement; right to reply; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 15


    4th Session, 1954
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The time limit of 15 days statutorily granted to the complainant to file an appeal against [the decision in question] is re-opened as from the date of the present judgment."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; new time limit; time limit;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


 
Last updated: 21.10.2021 ^ top