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: 94

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



  • 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, [..] 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:

    internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • 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:

    internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant presented a new claim in his rejoinder [...]. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not in his or her rejoinder enter new claims not contained in his or her original submissions. Consequently, this new claim must in any case be dismissed (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3207

    Keywords:

    new claim; rejoinder;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; new claim; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;



  • Judgment 3442


    119th Session, 2015
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "The foregoing events reflect a fundamental flaw in that aspect of the impugned decision. The chain of relevant decisions that were maintained or reconfirmed goes back to the initial decision of 3 August 2010 that the requests contained in the letter of 12 May 2010 were not receivable. With respect, that could not properly have been the decision on the referral of the “new claim” that was specifically circumscribed by the Director-General in order that the ABCC consider a discreet issue which had not been considered or determined before. It was therefore necessary for the Director-General to motivate the decision specifically as it related to the “new claim”, which had not previously been dismissed as irreceivable. His failure to do so is sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned decision insofar as it was concerned with the complainant’s third internal appeal."

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; new claim;



  • Judgment 3441


    119th Session, 2015
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law provides, in effect, that a complainant cannot ask the Tribunal to consider issues which were not a part of the case in the internal appeal proceedings. This is because if those issues were not before the internal appellate body for consideration they would be irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires. (See, for example, Judgment 2808, under 9.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2808

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; new claim;



  • Judgment 3421


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his application in a selection process.

    Consideration 2(a) and (b)

    Extract:

    [A]s the claim to an award of costs relates only to the complainant’s representation in the proceedings before the Tribunal, it could not be entered during the internal appeal procedure (see Judgment 2457, under 4 in fine). It is therefore receivable, as is the request for disclosure of the competition file, which is not in the nature of a claim, but concerns discovery of evidence.
    Some of the complainant’s submissions, which WIPO invites the Tribunal to disregard on the grounds that they were not put forward during the internal appeal procedure, are receivable, since they are merely new pleas which the complainant is perfectly entitled to enter in the proceedings before the Tribunal in support of his claims, provided that these claims fall within the scope of those which were made during the internal appeal procedure (see, in particular, Judgment 1519, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1519, 2457

    Keywords:

    new claim;



  • Judgment 3420


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 10

    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, Judgment 2837, under 3, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3222


    115th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to disclose some documents related to the procedure concerning his claim for compensation for a service-incurred illness.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "While the Tribunal’s case law recognises a need to apply Article VII(1) of its Statute with some flexibility (see, for example, Judgments 2360 and 2457), there are no decisions which support the view that a claim about a discrete subject can be introduced at a late stage in an internal appeal about an entirely different subject and the fact that it has been satisfies the requirement that internal appeals have been exhausted before a complaint about the different subject matter can be litigated in the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360, 2457

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3209


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.

    Considerations 13 and 14

    Extract:

    The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
    "[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
    The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3151


    113th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Regarding the complainant’s request for disclosure of the minutes of the hearing held concerning his three internal appeals, the Tribunal notes that it was raised for the first time in the rejoinder of the present proceedings. It is therefore irreceivable owing to a failure to exhaust internal means of redress.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; new claim; rejoinder;

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


 
Last updated: 23.01.2023 ^ top