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: 302

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >



  • Judgment 2157


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is competent, ratione personae, to hear the complaint since, under Article ii, paragraph 6, of its Statute. The Tribunal is open to former staff members. However, Article ii, paragraph 5, restricts the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of an organisation's staff regulations. [...] As a general rule, a former staff member who applies for a post in an organisation after separation from it may not rely on the rules that governed his contract of appointment and so does not have access to the Tribunal (see, among others, Judgments 1845 [...] and 1554 [...])" except in the case of "any contractual obligation the [organisation] may have had to help the complainant to find new employment [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1554, 1845

    Keywords:

    candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; competition; complaint; contract; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2136


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 499

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;



  • Judgment 2129


    93rd Session, 2002
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2124


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 477

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 2111


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal acknowledges that the relationship between officials and international organisations does not come to an end when they cease to work (see in this respect Judgment 986). It must therefore be recognised that former officials who consider that the terms of their contracts of employment or Staff Regulations have been disregarded, or that the administration has not accorded them the protection and guarantees deriving from their position as international civil servants, may avail themselves of the means of recourse available for the recognition of their rights [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 986

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service;



  • Judgment 2102


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The duty laid on international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration and not to impair their dignity may extend beyond the term of their appointment. In charging a staff member with misconduct in the performance of duty an organisation must observe due process, otherwise it may be held liable even after its contractual or statutory ties with the official have ceased, and the Tribunal will entertain such matters."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; locus standi; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; separation from service;



  • Judgment 2095


    92nd Session, 2002
    Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainants challenge a decision taken by the Committee of Representatives of the Member States concerning salary adjustments. The organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable since it is not the author of that decision. "The complainants are paid by [the organisation] and so may challenge any individual decisions that affect their terms of employment, particularly salary, regardless of who has authority over such decisions."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; competence; complaint; decision; decision-maker; executive body; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 2091


    92nd Session, 2002
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10 and 12

    Extract:

    The complainant had an accident while on duty. He signed a settlement agreement with the organisation and the CERN Pension Fund in order to solve the issue of the payment of an incapacity pension by the pension fund. "The ESO submits the complaint is not receivable as it does not allege non-observance of the terms of the complainant's appointment or of the [organisation]'s rules and regulations [...]. The Tribunal considers that since the settlement between the complainant, the [organisation] and the CERN Pension Fund arises out of the complainant's rights under his contract of employment as well as the Staff Rules and Regulations, it has jurisdiction to consider the effect of the trilateral agreement."

    Keywords:

    breach; cern pension fund; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; consequence; contract; definition; effect; iloat; incapacity; judicial review; organisation; payment; pension; professional accident; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2067


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 2058


    91st Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The [Organization] is right to object to the receivability of [the complaintant's] claim to the quashing of the invitation to him to write letters of apology. Although one of a set of measures devised by the organization in an attempt to put an end to this regrettable affair, the 'invitation' does not constitute, contrary to what the complainant asserts, a decision that can be set aside. If, however, the measure was proved to be excessive, as the complainant contends it is, his claim to compensation for moral injury arising from the affront to his dignity could be justified." (This is not the case here: see consideration 14.)

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; decision; decision quashed; moral injury; proposal; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 1970


    89th Session, 2000
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "A complainant cannot sit back and do nothing when an appeal is lodged. He must pursue the appeal diligently. Only then can he claim that delay is unreasonable. In the present case, the complainant failed to exhaust the means of internal appeal because he did not pursue his appeal diligently; therefore, he does not qualify to bring a direct appeal to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 1968


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Receivability falls to be determined at the time that a complaint is filed, not at some later date. As at 29 July 1999 the complainant had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. He had filed his appeal in time. Approximately a year later he wrote to enquire about its progress and had been informed that the administration had done nothing but would move forward as soon as possible. He filed his complaint just over four months later having heard nothing further from the administration. At that time almost twenty months had elapsed since the original challenged decision had been published. The administration's plea that it had a heavy backlog of internal appeals to deal with may be a reason for the inordinate delay, but it is not an excuse. As at 29 July 1999, it was simply not reasonable to expect the complainant to wait any longer to see even the beginning of the end of the internal appeal procedure. If the organisation was overloaded with internal appeals, it was for it to remedy the situation rather than expect the complainant to bear the consequences."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; administrative delay; complaint; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1964


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; locus standi; medical examination; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1932


    88th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal would emphasise that it will not tolerate the waste of time and money caused by the pursuit of abusive and unnecessary procedures before it and will take towards those responsible any appropriate action, including awards of costs, if requested to do so."

    Keywords:

    complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 1884


    87th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 8-9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has never heretofore imposed a costs penalty upon a complainant. However, it asserts unequivocally that it possesses the inherent power to do so as part of the necessary power to control its own process. Clearly, such power must be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most exceptional situations since it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive and chilling effect of possible adverse awards of costs. [T]he Tribunal [...] declares that in future it will award costs against complainants in appropriate cases if they are sought."

    Keywords:

    complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 1870


    87th Session, 1999
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Mr. B., intervening in a previous case, had resorted to an expert in graphology in order to prove that the complainant, who contested his appointment to a post, had falsified documents. He seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in obtaining this expert opinion. "The steps he took were not necessary since, when expert opinion is required, it is for the Tribunal to order it on its own motion or on the application of another party (Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal). Mr. B. should therefore have confined himself to submitting the question to the Tribunal, which would have judged the pertinence of the matter and the validity of the proof supplied. The costs which he incurred in obtaining an extra-judicial expert opinion, which cannot replace a judicial expert opinion, were not therefore necessary." So they are not reimbursable by the organisation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    complaint; cost of expert inquiry; expert inquiry; further submissions; intervention; submissions;



  • Judgment 1792


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Someone who intervenes in a complaint [...] may not put forward any pleas but the complainant's. The intervener must have the same claims as the complainant and seek the same redress on the strength of the same pleas." (See Judgments 365 and 366.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 365, 366

    Keywords:

    application for execution; claim; complaint; difference; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 1786


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "According to consistent precedent, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, the staff member must impugn an individual decision applying a general one and, if need be, may for that purpose challenge the lawfulness of the general one without any risk of being told that such challenge is time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1740


    85th Session, 1998
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In line with consistent precedent the Tribunal will take [...] the date [the addressee] himself entered on the text, as the date of receipt of the decision. That he did not look at it until later is immaterial. What counts is the date at which he got it."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1718


    84th Session, 1998
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute, which is about the implied rejection of a claim, serves to allow a complainant who has got no decision on his claim to act as if a final decision had been taken. "If no decision is forthcoming within sixty days of the notification of the claim to the administration, the complainant may, within a further time limit of ninety days, bring a complaint against the implied rejection, which becomes the impugned decision. [...] There is no provision for applying to the Tribunal for an order to the Director general to state a negative final decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; iloat statute; implied decision; interpretation; time limit;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top