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

New claim (19, 647,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: New claim
Total judgments found: 82

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

  • Judgment 4305


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment due to the abolition of his post and the failure to reassign him to another suitable vacant position.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    WHO challenges the receivability of the complainant’s allegations concerning some of his applications made both during and after the expiry of the reassignment period, on the ground that the selection processes for those positions are not relevant to the impugned decision. However, the complainant is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment (see Judgment 4036, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4036

    Keywords:

    new claim; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4293


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    UNIDO submits that the complainant’s challenge to the decision to advertise the P-2 post externally is irreceivable. It argues that that decision was a separate and distinct decision which the complainant should have appealed at the time that the vacancy was announced. This argument is unsustainable. The Tribunal stated, in consideration 17 of Judgment 4008, that, ordinarily, a vacancy announcement is neither a final administrative decision nor a decision which adversely affects an individual staff member. The complainant therefore properly contested the vacancy announcement at the time that he did.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4008

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; new claim; vacancy notice;

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    UNIDO submits that the “claim” for the production of documents relating to the recruitment decision is irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, because the complainant did not request the documents in the course of his internal appeal. UNIDO states that, moreover, he had not sought review of the administrative decision which rejected his request. UNIDO observes that under Staff Rule 112.02(a) a serving or former staff member who wishes to appeal an administrative decision shall request a review of the decision within 60 days from the date on which the staff member received notification of the decision in writing.
    However, a request for the production of documents is not a claim. It is concerned with access to evidence. Receivability is therefore not at issue. Moreover, the Tribunal has stated the basic applicable principles concerning access to documents in consideration 5 of Judgment 4023, as follows:
    “According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272, 4023

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; new claim;



  • Judgment 4240


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant makes it clear that she is not relying upon statements concerning harassment to assert that the decision to reassign her “was driven by the claimed harassment of [the DXD/MER] but rather that it occurred as a result of [the DXD/MER’s] malice, ill-will and prejudice against [her]” and that any statements brought into the present proceedings touching allegations of harassment are merely to support her plea that her reassignment was occasioned by these alleged improper motives on the part of the DXD/MER. She is not precluded from relying on statements touching on the alleged harassment to support her plea in these proceedings that she was reassigned as a result of the alleged improper motives (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4231


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant’s claim for punitive damages is irreceivable in the Tribunal as it was not raised in the internal appeal.

    Keywords:

    new claim; punitive damages;



  • Judgment 4221


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4092, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 4215


    129th Session, 2020
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    The Tribunal will not [...] grant the complainant’s claims for compensation for new heads of injury which were submitted for the first time in his rejoinder, since such claims are, for that very reason, irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2965, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2965

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 4185


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [A] new claim [...] is irreceivable as it extends the scope of the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see, for example, Judgment 4066, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4066

    Keywords:

    new claim;



  • Judgment 4095


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and to terminate his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [...] In some cases the discrepancy between the amount claimed in an internal appeal and the amount claimed in the proceedings before the Tribunal sustains a conclusion that what is claimed in the latter proceedings is a new claim and irreceivable (see, for example, Judgment 3997, considerations 3 to 6). In other cases it might be difficult to characterise the claim for a larger amount in the Tribunal as a new claim. Nonetheless, in the absence of an explanation for the increased amount, the Tribunal has set its face against a complainant pursuing the larger amount (see, for example, Judgment 3419, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 3997

    Keywords:

    material damages; moral injury; new claim;



  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant presents, for the first time in his rejoinder, various claims for compensation for injuries that he considers he has suffered as a result of WHO’s conduct. However, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2996, consideration 6). This case law also applies to applications for execution (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6). These new claims must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996, 3207

    Keywords:

    application for execution; new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 4074


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to review or amend the separation agreement offered to him and to terminate his appointment without the appropriate financial package.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the internal consideration of his grievance. The Global Fund argues this claim is irreceivable. Routinely and necessarily such a claim can only first be made in the Tribunal. The claim is receivable. The Global Fund contends the internal appeal process took 11 months, which was reasonable. The complainant draws attention to the fact that there was a period of nearly 18 months between the public delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment and the final decision of the Executive Director. Even taking that longer period, significant periods of time can be attributed to the conduct of the complainant or his counsel, particularly the time taken to respond to a Global Fund proposal concerning informal discussions to resolve the matter in the first half of 2015. The internal appeal took approximately 11 months. This is a lengthy period but, in all the circumstances including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, it was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4066


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The FAO raises receivability as a threshold issue submitting that the complainant did not raise in her internal appeal some of the issues which she raises in her complaint. However, the Tribunal finds that the FAO has not distinguished between new pleas, which the complainant may rely on to support her claims, and new claims, which would be irreceivable as they extend the scope of the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see Judgment 4009, under 10, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4009


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.

    Considerations 10-14

    Extract:

    As the defendant organisation notes, the complainant’s “request” to have his fixed-term contract redefined was not submitted to the Advisory Board. It is true that in his internal appeal the complainant asked only to have his fixed-term contract extended for one year. The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas, as the present complainant does, before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5). [...]
    As stated in consideration 10, above, the Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4002


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing as clearly irreceivable his grievance complaint against several members of the Staff Council.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In his complaint, the complainant maintains that he was subjected to harassment, retaliation, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power, defamation, and a violation of human rights. He submits that the Staff Council’s members unfounded allegations against him; barring him from performing his duty as a member of the Staff Council; and publishing of a defamatory document about him constitute improper conduct and created a hostile working environment. It must be observed that [...] the only grievances that have been subject to internal review are those of retaliation and defamation. It follows that the allegations of harassment, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power and violation of human rights are beyond the scope of this complaint and will not be considered. As to the allegations of retaliation and defamation, [...] the complainant does not dispute that the acts allegedly constituting retaliation and defamation were taken in the context of Staff Council activities.

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3997


    126th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his 2012 performance evaluation.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Global Fund [...] refers to Judgment 3069, consideration 5. In that matter the complainant had, before the internal appeal body, sought symbolic damages in the amount of one Swiss franc but in the proceedings before the Tribunal had sought to convert that claim into a claim for actual and moral damages. The Tribunal found that claim was irreceivable and cited Judgment 2837, consideration 3. The present case is indistinguishable in this respect and the complainant cites no authority to resist the conclusion that the claims for damages are irreceivable. They are not receivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069

    Keywords:

    moral injury; new claim;



  • Judgment 3967


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    As the complainant did not put forward the claim for material damages mentioned in the foregoing consideration in his internal appeal, it is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It will be dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exhaust internal remedies in relation to that claim.
    Likewise, the claim for the breach of the duty of care is also irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It is outside the scope of the internal appeal as it was raised for the first time by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant did not claim in the internal appeal that his director, or by extension the EPO, breached the duty of care towards him. However, the majority of the IAC, having considered that the director’s actions did not constitute an offence to the complainant’s dignity amounting to harassment, concluded that the actions complained of amounted to a breach of the director’s duty of care towards the complainant. This finding clearly went beyond the scope of the internal appeal and was not addressed in the impugned decision.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3945


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3725


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    UNIDO raises receivability as a threshold issue contending that since the complainant sought the removal of adverse material from his personnel file for the first time in the present complaint, this request is irreceivable because he did not exhaust the internal means of redress in relation to it as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
    The Tribunal rejects this contention as this is an additional request for a remedy arising from existing claims and not a new claim.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    new claim; personal file;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    UNIDO also notes that the complainant expanded the quantum of his claim for damages on his earlier claims and goes further in the rejoinder to introduce new claims of constructive dismissal. UNIDO submits that these are irreceivable and that the claims for damages should only be admitted to the extent of the earlier amounts which the complainant had sought.
    The Tribunal has consistently stated that a new claim which is raised in a rejoinder is irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    damages; new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3688


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and to separate her from service.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    WHO contends that [the complainant's] allegations of prejudice and bias, retaliation and malice in the present complaint are irreceivable. However, the Tribunal holds that those allegations are not claims, but pleas to support her argument that these were some of the factors which influenced the abolition of her post and separation (see, for example, Judgments 2837, consideration 3, and 3617, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3617

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3655


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that she was not promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted a new claim in her rejoinder. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in her or his original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 1768, under 5, or Judgment 2996, under 6). This new claim must therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768, 2996

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3654


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain on his personal file a disputed performance appraisal report issued after the expiry of his temporary appointment, and the decision to reject his application for inclusion on a roster of candidates eligible for temporary contracts.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The FAO submits that [the complainant's claim] is irreceivable as it was raised for the first time in the present complaint. The Tribunal observes that this was not raised as an independent claim in the internal appeal, but that the complainant mentioned the fact that he received the PAR appraisal two months after the end of his appointment and referred to the applicable case law. To this extent it amounts to a plea to support his case, rather than a claim, and is accordingly receivable.

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;

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


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top