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

Claim (18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Claim
Total judgments found: 141

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

  • Judgment 4796


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [A]lthough the complainant seeks the award of “any other relief which the Tribunal considers just and equitable”, a claim worded in this way is, in any event, too vague to be regarded as receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4719, consideration 7, 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602, 4719

    Keywords:

    claim; formal requirements;



  • Judgment 4795


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
    Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734

    Keywords:

    claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;



  • Judgment 4769


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Three of the decisions which the complainant challenges as unlawful and seeks to have set aside are general decisions. [...]
    However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s claim for these decisions to be set aside is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue and the two decisions of 20 September 2019 – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734

    Keywords:

    claim; general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 4768


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In respect of the complainant’s submission in [...] his rejoinder that compliance by Eurocontrol with its obligations “should take the form of the assignment of the post [in question]”, it must be noted that this request is not one of the claims formally set out by the complainant in his submissions.

    Keywords:

    claim; formal requirements;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant argues in his submissions, the delay of 23 months in reaching a decision on his internal complaint was clearly excessive and it was particularly unreasonable that the Director General did not take a decision until more than 10 months after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued its opinion. As the complainant has not submitted any claim for damages under this head, no specific order will be made. However, the Tribunal wishes to point out to Eurocontrol that such a delay, which it does not convincingly justify in its submissions, is unacceptable.

    Keywords:

    claim; delay in internal procedure; formal requirements;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant further requests that the Director General’s internal memorandum of 4 July 2019 be set aside, but that claim is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734

    Keywords:

    claim; general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 4719


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant’s claim [...] to be awarded such other relief as the Tribunal deems just, fair and equitable is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602

    Keywords:

    claim; formal requirements;



  • Judgment 4563


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The range of procedural issues and other pleas raised by the complainant had no material effect on the outcome or are irrelevant. Accordingly, these other immaterial or irrelevant pleas need not be addressed (see Judgment 4487, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4487

    Keywords:

    claim;



  • Judgment 4555


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him the additional installation allowance in respect of his second child following his transfer to The Hague.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The EPO submits that the claim for “[a]ny other costs the Tribunal considers appropriate” is irreceivable for lack of basic clarity. This aspect of the claim for costs is dismissed as the complainant has not articulated any basis for such an award.

    Keywords:

    claim;



  • Judgment 4537


    134th Session, 2022
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 July 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    It is desirable […] to consider the question of whether a request for extension needs to be in writing. There is no express requirement in the Staff Rules to this effect and none, in particular, in the relevant provision, namely Staff Rule 1020.1.4. However, there is a procedure for requesting an exceptional extension of an appointment set out in Section III.10.8 of the WHO eManual at paragraph 20. It provides: “In all cases, requests for extensions must be submitted to the Director-General through the Director, HRD and requests will not be granted for more than one year at a time.” This does not say, expressly, that the request needs to be in writing. However, impliedly it does need to be in writing. The use of the word “submitted” is, in context, a clear pointer to this conclusion. Also, a procedure which requires a request to be made through the Director, HRD, almost certainly needs to be in writing. Virtually inevitably any such request, whether by the staff member concerned or a supervisor on the staff member’s behalf, would need to contain the reasons why the circumstances were exceptional and why it was in the interests of the Organization to grant the extension, in order to persuade the Director-General to do so. Plainly, the Director, HRD, is intended to be something more than a “letter box” to pass on requests to the Director-General. Implicit in this arrangement is that the Director, HRD, can provide some preliminary assessment or commentary to assist the Director-General in making the ultimate decision and, in particular, assessing whether the extension would be in the interests of the Organization. It is difficult to conceive of how this scheme could operate if the request could be made orally. It is highly unlikely that it is contemplated a request can be made orally, considered and then transmitted with the attendant risk that the Director, HRD, might misunderstand or misrepresent even innocently what was being put by the person making the request.

    Keywords:

    claim;



  • Judgment 4277


    130th Session, 2020
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As regards the claim for the setting aside “more generally” of any other “decision of general application forming the basis” of the impugned decisions, the Tribunal considers that this claim has not been formulated in sufficient detail to allow the challenged decision (or decisions) to be identified.

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint;



  • Judgment 4273


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that these arguments, which do not appear to have been raised in the internal appeal proceedings, are, for the most part, set out in the section of the written submissions presenting the facts of the case. It is not therefore clear whether the complainants wish to raise them as pleas challenging the lawfulness of the general decision of the Council of CERN [...].

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; legal brief;



  • Judgment 4243


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    WIPO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the grounds that it is directed against the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016 and not against the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016, which was the final decision. It is correct that in the complaint form the complainant only mentioned the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016, but in her written submissions she also seeks the setting aside of the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016.
    The challenge to the receivability of the complaint therefore fails.

    Keywords:

    claim; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4096


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

    Keywords:

    claim; final decision; receivability of application;



  • Judgment 3918


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Considerations 3 & 4

    Extract:

    The relief [the complainant] seeks is:
    “(a) The cancellation of his reassignment process as based on discrimination, non[-]application of guidelines and incomplete and biased review of the facts;
    [...]
    (c) His immediate rein[statement] to a position suited to his qualifications and experience until his retirement in 2017 [and the payment of all entitlements during that time];"
    [...]
    The first point to be made is that this judgment of the Tribunal is being given after the date on which the complainant would have retired from WHO. Accordingly, there would be no utility in making orders to the same effect of the proposed orders in (a) and (c) [...].

    Keywords:

    claim; reinstatement; retirement;



  • Judgment 3738


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The author of a complaint is of course free to decide what claims she or he wishes to file with the Tribunal. It is those claims – unless they are amended or counterclaims are filed – that determine the scope of the dispute. Where, as is the case here, they are clearly identified, their terms bind not only the other party but also the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 630, under 2 and 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 630

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint;



  • Judgment 3711


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the EPO not to treat his internal appeal as such.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint dismissed; decision; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3640


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s claims that the Tribunal should declare that “[his] complaint […] is receivable in all respects”, “that the impugned decision is unlawful because it is tainted with errors of fact and of law and with substantial formal and procedural flaws” and that “[his] summary dismissal for serious misconduct in fact constitutes wrongful dismissal callously imposed” shortly before the expiry of his employment contract and the end of his career, may be dismissed at the outset as irreceivable. Indeed, they can only be regarded as mere pleas in support of the complainant’s claims for the setting aside of the impugned decision and for damages. A long line of precedent has it that such claims seeking declarations in law are irreceivable where, as in this case, they have no legal effect per se (see, for example, Judgments 1546, under 3, 2299, under 5, or 3206, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2299, 3206

    Keywords:

    claim;



  • Judgment 3561


    121st Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal’s case law allows conditional claims, even when their exact amount is not specified."

    Keywords:

    claim;



  • Judgment 3428


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    [T]he complainants requested subsidiarily that the Tribunal should order the EPO “correctly to interpret the capping in Art[icle] 10 [of the New Pension Scheme Regulations]” [...]. The Tribunal may not, however, issue such injunctions to an international organisation. Hence these claims are [...] irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 1456, under 31, 2244, under 12, or 2793, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 2244, 2793

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; order;



  • 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 14

    Extract:

    The claims for relief in a complaint are the remedies sought in the event the complainant is successful or partially successful in the prosecution of the complaint. Given the evolution of a case over time, some remedies initially sought in the internal appeal might not be pursued in a complaint and other claims for relief may arise, for example, from the final decision itself that could not have been contemplated at the time the internal appeal was filed. For the purpose of the present judgment a consideration of the circumstances under which the Tribunal will consider a claim for relief not advanced in the internal appeal process is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that it is not a matter of receivability in relation to the complaint itself.

    Keywords:

    claim; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 3279


    116th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants’ duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol’s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944

    Keywords:

    case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top