Reply (169, 170, 171,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reply
Total judgments found: 43
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
After the decision not to renew his contract the complainant was placed on special leave with full pay until the end of the contract and his access to the building was withdrawn. When he went to the OPCW's premises in order to hand in his request for review, he was escorted at all times by a security officer. The complainant considered this treatment to be an affront to his dignity. "Without in any way denying that the OPCW, like many other international organisations, must be vigilant about matters of internal security, the Tribunal notes that neither in the impugned decision nor in its reply does the Organisation give any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat the complainant in such a humiliating manner. Except in the most urgent cases, the requirements of security can almost always be fully met while still respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. This is especially so where [...] there is no breach of discipline involved and the person concerned has for many years occupied a position of trust to the Organisation's apparent complete satisfaction. [...] The Tribunal assesses [the moral] damages at 10,000 euros [...]."
Keywords:
assignment; breach; contract; grounds; injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's duties; reply; respect for dignity; right; salary; satisfactory service; special leave;
Judgment 2278
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant here is unrepresented. While the employment of a legally trained advisor is not a requirement and is no guarantee that a case will be well presented, the complainant's written pleadings are repetitive and contain largely unhelpful personal attacks on the member of the legal department who wrote the [Organisation]'s pleadings. They also contain unfounded and insulting comments about the EPO to which the latter properly objects. The Tribunal will limit the award of costs to 300 euros."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counsel; rejoinder; reply;
Judgment 2264
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(e)
Extract:
"In his written submissions [to the Tribunal] the complainant refers in part to explanations he provided in other documents. Under article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, the arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself (supplemented, if need be, by the rejoinder). Those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, since this would be contrary to the provisions of the Rules and would not enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend the complainant's pleas with sufficient ease and clarity. Consequently, the complainant's references are acceptable only as illustrations, but not as an extension of the arguments contained in the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 6(1)(B) OF THE RULES OF THE TRIBUNAL
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; investigation; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 2172
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; decision; different appraisals; extension of contract; mistake of fact; performance report; period; post; probationary period; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; supervisor; transfer; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2136
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;
Judgment 1878
87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 31
Extract:
"It is not acceptable that the organization, in defending this complaint, disclaims all responsibility for any alleged shortcomings of the Appeals Board."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply;
Judgment 1486
80th Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the defendant organisation submits a reply it must enable the Tribunal to render a complete ruling on the dispute. If it chooses to argue only procedural issues, that may - even if it does not so intend - amount to dilatory tactics that hold up the ruling, and the risk is that the Tribunal may treat the complainant's allegations of fact as established."
Keywords:
reply; reply confined to receivability; submissions;
Judgment 1433
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Article VII (1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires that for a complaint to be receivable the complainant must have 'exhausted such other means of resisting a final decision as are open to him under the applicable staff regulations'. The Tribunal recognises that reasonable time must be allowed for completing the internal appeal procedure. Yet in this case [fifteen months had passed between the date of the complainant's internal appeal and the organization's response to the appeal] objections to receivability ill become the defendant".
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; date; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; reply;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant was kept waiting over sixteen months [...] for an answer to his request [...] and fifteen months for the [organisation] to file its reply [...] to his appeal [...] and so let the internal appeal procedure go ahead. The Tribunal holds that since he took all the steps he could take to obtain a final decision and since the [organisation] failed to discharge promptly its obligations under the internal procedure he was justified in coming to the Tribunal. That is in keeping with what the Tribunal ruled in, for example, Judgment 1243 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1243
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; date; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; reply;
Judgment 1431
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO described [the complainant's] complaint as "an abuse". But it does not ask the Tribunal to dismiss it as irreceivable for that reason. "The defendant is merely exercising the freedom of speech that any litigant must be allowed, short of resorting to offensive or insulting language." the complainant's claim to damages on that account fails.
Keywords:
criteria; freedom of speech; limits; new claim; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1420
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
See Judgment 1419, consideration 20.
Keywords:
complaint; new plea; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; surrejoinder;
Judgment 1419
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It is inadmissible for the Observatory in its surrejoinder - to which it knows the complainants do not have the opportunity of answering - to raise a new objection to receivability on the strength of facts it was aware of at the time of filing. The plea is the less acceptable for being at odds with the ESO's reply."
Keywords:
complaint; new plea; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; surrejoinder;
Judgment 1410
78th Session, 1995
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
See Judgment 1409, consideration 7.
Keywords:
application for execution; application for review; organisation; reply;
Judgment 1320
76th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant is challenging the validity of the ITU's reply because it was signed not by the Secretary-General or the legal adviser but by the chief of the Personnel Department. "She is mistaken. According to Article 13(2) of the Rules of Court a defendant organisation may be represented by any serving or former official. It is so represented here: the chief of personnel may properly represent the Union."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 13(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
organisation; reply;
Judgment 1289
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has said before, many decisions by international organisations that prompt complaints are unsubstantiated. Yet the staff member is still able to defend his rights. Though not stated in the actual text, the reasons for the decision may be discerned from earlier correspondence between the parties or in the last resort from the organization's brief in reply to the complaint, which the staff member may comment on in his rejoinder. Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organization need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; duty to substantiate decision; injury; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; practice; rejoinder; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 1242
74th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the organization did not do its utmost to reinstate him in execution of Judgment 1154. WIPO's letter "does not substantiate the contention that it had. it simply conveys the Director General's decision 'not to extend [the complainant]'s appointment'. It says nothing of any attempts to find him a suitable position and thereby discharge its primary obligation under Judgment 1154. [...] The Director General had the duty to justify his decision by explaining why it was impossible to reinstate the complainant [...] only in its reply to this complaint does the organization maintain that 'there was no possibility of reinstating the complainant since there was no suitable post to which he could be appointed given his qualifications'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; reinstatement; reply; res judicata; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1197
73rd Session, 1992
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14, Summary
Extract:
Since the Organization has remained silent at all stages of the proceedings on various questions raised by the complainant, being "prevented from ruling on the issues before it the Tribunal adjourns review of the merits of the case pending further information and argument." It accordingly orders further submissions.
Keywords:
further submissions; interlocutory order; judicial review; reply; tribunal;
Judgment 1172
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The conclusion is that in substance [the complainant's] letter [...] amounted to a request for further information and explanation on a matter the parties had been discussing for years. If his intention was to lodge an appeal under Chapter VI of the Staff Rules he ought to have used language more in keeping with that of an appeal. In any event, on receiving CERN's reply [...] he ought to have applied for referral to the Appeals Board, which [...] is not just a formality. Had he applied for such referral the ambiguous wording of his letter might have been treated as just an oversight, and had the organization turned down his claims it might have been held that he had exhausted the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) the Tribunal's Statute required him to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: CHAPTER VI OF THE CERN STAFF RULES
Keywords:
condition; formal requirements; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 871
63rd Session, 1987
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The submissions in the complaint and in the organization's reply being properly before it, the Tribunal will not forbear to rule for want of a rejoinder the complainant has failed to file even after two extensions of the time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 723
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; complainant; complaint; negligence; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
