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

Complaint (3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Complaint
Total judgments found: 299

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | 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 4097


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal will only have regard to the pleas contained in the complainant’s brief and rejoinder to the Tribunal and will disregard any pleas incorporated by reference to documents created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgment 3951, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3951

    Keywords:

    complaint; legal brief;



  • Judgment 4087


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [...] It should be recalled that the date of filing of complaints and briefs before the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, for example, Judgment 3566, consideration 3). The file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, secretariat of the International Labour Organization, where the Tribunal is based, on 15 June 2015. As the reply was thus sent on that date at the latest, that is within the prescribed time limit, which expired that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late (see Judgment 3648, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566, 3648

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of filing; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 4060


    127th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see, for example, Judgment 2856, under 5). As a result of the reinstatement of the complainant’s firearm authorisation, the impugned decision is no longer operative and, consequently, the complainant’s claim for the reversal of “the decision to temporarily remove [his] authority to carry a firearm or, in case this cannot be granted, reinstate [his] authorisation to carry a firearm” has been overtaken by the 22 February 2017 decision. The fact that the impugned decision is no longer in force, however, does not resolve the other live issues between the parties concerning the lawfulness of that decision and the consequences of that decision for which the complainant claims moral damages.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856

    Keywords:

    cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4051


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal repeats its case law that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder, if necessary and “that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the [Tribunal’s] Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas [and that] such references are acceptable only as illustrations” (see, for example, Judgment 3434, under 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements;



  • Judgment 3920


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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 4, and 3434, consideration 5). In this matter, the Tribunal will only have regard to pleas in the complainant’s brief and rejoinder and will disregard any additional, supplementary or other pleas in the Statement of Appeal before the HBA.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434, 3692, 3842

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements;



  • 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 3616


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract and the refusal to grant her a termination indemnity.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    First the EPO questions the receivability of the complaint. It holds that the complainant merely outlines the facts contained in her submissions to the IAC and does not enter any explicit plea.
    This criticism will not be accepted. While the arguments of fact and of law of the complainant, who is not assisted by a representative, are rather succinct, they are sufficient to enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend with sufficient ease and clarity the complainant’s pleas (see Judgment 2264, under 3(e)), which culminate in the claim that the impugned decision should be set aside and that various indemnities should be paid.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264

    Keywords:

    complaint; grounds;



  • Judgment 3434


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264

    Keywords:

    complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3432


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant’s brief (without annexures) in the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises three pages. It is, at times, expressed in inappropriately colourful language. The brief effectively adopts the documented argument of the complainant in the internal appeal (a practice the Tribunal does not approve of) [...].

    Keywords:

    complaint; formal requirements; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;



  • 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 3115


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 3112


    113th Session, 2012
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
    "As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;



  • 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 2980


    110th Session, 2011
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Competition considered procedurally flawed because candidates were added to the shortlist after the evaluation process had begun.
    "[T]he Tribunal rules on the basis of the specific claims against an administrative decision in a particular complaint, which means that if an alleged flaw is found not to have existed, that is not to say that the administrative decision was lawful and that no flaw exists which could be contested in a new complaint within the established time limits."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; flaw; res judicata; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2962


    110th Session, 2011
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Organization asks the Tribunal to 'delete' certain passages from the complaint, as in its view they have no bearing on this dispute. The Tribunal will not grant this request, because complainants are free to present any argument that they consider relevant to their case, provided that they do not use terms or a tone overstepping the bounds of what is permissible in judicial proceedings."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; condition; discontinuance; limits; organisation; refusal;



  • Judgment 2944


    109th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "[The] complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are largely interdependent. The Tribunal therefore considers that they should be joined in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment."

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; identical claims; identical facts; joinder;



  • Judgment 2913


    109th Session, 2010
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
    "The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2912


    109th Session, 2010
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top