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: 133

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

  • 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;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Reference is made to decisions of this Tribunal which make it clear that an organisation is under a duty to investigate claims of harassment promptly and bona fide (see Judgments 2552, 2654 and 2910).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2654, 2910

    Keywords:

    claim; harassment; investigation; time limit;



  • Judgment 3180


    114th Session, 2013
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from a salary adjustment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he fact that the amount of money claimed may be derisory does not prevent the claim from being receivable. [I]f the [Organisation] was of the opinion that the amount at stake in this dispute was derisory, it ought to have tried to put an end to it by reaching an amicable settlement."

    Keywords:

    amount; claim; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant is [...] entitled to claim interest for the late payment of the back pay resulting from [...] a [salary] adjustment."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; amount; claim; delay; interest on damages; payment; salary;



  • Judgment 3166


    114th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
    The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3164


    114th Session, 2013
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.

    Consideration 7(a)

    Extract:

    "[A]n organisation must interpret a staff member’s claims in good faith and read them as it might reasonably have been expected to do (see, in particular, Judgment 1768, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768

    Keywords:

    claim; good faith; interpretation; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 3130


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3103


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are, to a large extent, interdependent, and the Tribunal finds it appropriate that they be joined, notwithstanding the complainant's position (see Judgments 2861, under 6, and 2944, under 19)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 2944

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; joinder; submissions;



  • Judgment 3092


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "It must [...] be observed that, by any standards, a delay of 42 months in completing the processing of a compensation claim [...] is unreasonable."

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; delay; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 3071


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 36

    Extract:

    "It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment. That duty extends to both the staff member alleging harassment and the person against whom a complaint is made (see Judgment 2642, under 8). [...] Further, the duty is a duty to investigate claims of harassment "promptly and thoroughly" (see Judgment 2642, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642

    Keywords:

    claim; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;

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


 
Last updated: 03.12.2021 ^ top