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

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



  • Judgment 2649


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897

    Keywords:

    breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;



  • Judgment 2637


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant requests that the effective date of the administration's decision to grant her international status be changed to December 1991 instead of August 2005. "[I]t may be noted that, exceptionally, retroactive effect may be granted to a decision where the effect is favourable to a staff member (see Judgment 1130). In the present case, however, a grant of retroactivity would confer no benefit on the complainant either in relation to home leave or education grant. In the circumstances, the rule against retroactivity should be applied."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1130

    Keywords:

    allowance; amendment to the rules; claim; date; decision; education expenses; effect; enforcement; exception; general principle; home leave; non-local status; non-retroactivity; official; staff member's interest; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 2636


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "By Article VIII of its Statute the Tribunal is empowered to rescind impugned decisions, to order the performance of obligations and to award compensation. It is not empowered to order apologies. Nor is it empowered to require undertakings as to performance of obligations in the future, as claimed by the complainant."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute

    Keywords:

    allowance; apology; claim; competence of tribunal; decision quashed; iloat statute; organisation; organisation's duties; payment;



  • Judgment 2625


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459

    Keywords:

    cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2594


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "It is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to make recommendations to an organisation regarding the implementation of specific procedures on workplace harassment and to order an organisation to make an apology."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; harassment; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2527


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "As it has ruled on several occasions (see, for instance, Judgment 1456), the Tribunal may not order an organisation to seek an agreement with any State or institution."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456

    Keywords:

    case law; claim; competence of tribunal; member state; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2471


    99th Session, 2005
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Following a reorganisation the post the complainant held in the Department of General Services (AGS) was transferred to another department. In December 2002 she was reassigned to AGS, though in a different position. She asks to be given back the duties and responsibilites she had in AGS prior to the reorganisation. "The Tribunal considers that this request cannot be granted, for it would imply undoing the reorganisation and reversing the technological changes that have been made, which, as the complainant herself acknowledges in her submissions, were both necessary and predictable. Her position is thus untenable."

    Keywords:

    claim; difference; liability; post; post held by the complainant; reassignment; refusal; reorganisation; transfer;



  • 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 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
    Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."

    Keywords:

    candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;



  • Judgment 2440


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    If a staff member withdraws some of his/her claims during the internal appeal procedure, he/she cannot raise them before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2418


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Although the EPO has disputed the complainants' claim for costs of these proceedings on the basis that their counsel is a full-time EPO staff member, it is appropriate to award each complainant 1,000 euros to cover their out of pocket expenses, time and trouble."

    Keywords:

    claim; condition; costs; counsel; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2417


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;



  • Judgment 2416


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8 and 11

    Extract:

    "The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
    The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2394


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Since he partially succeeds, the complainant is entitled to costs, which he may claim directly before the Tribunal, contrary to the defendant's plea".

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; costs; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; right;



  • Judgment 2382


    98th Session, 2005
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant asks the Tribunal to lift the diplomatic immunity of the WHO. "[T]his does not lie within the competence of the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; waiver of immunity;



  • Judgment 2381


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[I]t is for complainants to put forward specific arguments in support of their complaints, concisely and precisely, so that the Tribunal may rule on their claims in full knowledge of the facts."

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2379


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant [...] claims days of special leave, which he had been denied, to sit [...] examinations. The Tribunal notes that it does not have the authority to order such action."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; special leave;



  • Judgment 2371


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2370


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."

    Keywords:

    claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2364


    97th Session, 2004
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Even though it is only the 'decision' of 10 March 2002 which he wishes to have set aside, the complainant refers to facts which arose after that date and adds in his rejoinder that, since the final decision was dated 23 July 2002, 'all grievances raised until that date can validly be taken into account' as part of his complaint. [...] With regard to the claims based on facts subsequent to 10 March 2002 and presented as grounds for appeal, since internal remedies were not exhausted (Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal), they must be deemed irreceivable. [...] Furthermore, the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; subsequent fact;

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


 
Last updated: 14.10.2021 ^ top