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 1451


    79th Session, 1995
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 1932 - submits the [organisation] - the Tribunal held under 18 and 24 that [...] a suit, [filed in the general interests of the civil service,] of which the hallmark is action by staff associations or agents professing to represent them, does not form part of the system of individual appeal that the organisations which have recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction commonly provide for in their rules and that the Tribunal's own Statute contemplates. The Tribunal need not revert to that case law since this is not such a complaint. It has been filed by several officials with the commendable aim of making the proceedings simpler, and each of them is defending his own individual interests, even though they are the same as the others'. The objection [to receivability for being a 'collective' complaint] fails."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1392

    Keywords:

    case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "The [amendment in question] strikes out of the terms of employment ipso facto the safeguard of international judicial review and vests jurisdiction in municipal courts instead. The amendment brings about an immediate and almost irreversible change in the system of appeal. So [...] every staff member has an actual and present interest in having light shed on the matter. The Tribunal affords guarantees of a system of international law within the bounds of its competence: see Judgments 1265, under 24, and 1328, under 13. It would therefore be wrong to deny the staff the right of appeal on the grounds that the impugned decision is general in purport."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1265, 1328

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; general decision; internal appeal; municipal court; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "The [organisation pleads] that to quash a general decision on an application from a few might damage the interests of others who wanted it to remain in force. The plea is certainly material since [...] the staff of the UPU seem to disagree about the amendment [in question]. But the Tribunal is satisfied that when a decision has been challenged, albeit by only a few, it has a duty to rule in full objectivity and as soon as possible. The Union itself has well defended the interests of those who want to keep the decision, and they themselves may do so by filing applications to intervene."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; application for quashing; complaint; general decision; intervention; receivability of the complaint; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1448


    79th Session, 1995
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 17-18

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal holds that the decision [against which the complainant submitted an internal appeal] was not a final one, the object [...] being only to initiate discussion: see Judgment 336 [...]. Although he had been identified as a staff member 'likely to be terminated', there was [...] no actual decision that he would be terminated at such and such a date or on stated terms". "He failed to submit an appeal [against the final decision] and thereby failed to exhaust the internal means of redress available to him. Accordingly, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 336

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; statement of intent;



  • Judgment 1443


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The complainant may not put wider claims to the Tribunal than in the internal appeal".

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Some of the complainant's [...] procedural and substantive objections [rely on] claims and pleas [presented by] other staff whose appeals also went to the Appeals Committee. As the EPO [correctly] observes, the material issues of this complaint are [limited to] the decision he was challenging in his internal appeal."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1442


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The EPO pleads that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that theinternal appeal came too long after the announcement of the disputed measure and the general decision to apply it to the staff. "The objection cannot be sustained. What the complainant is impugning is not those general decisions but theapplication of them to himself which would be the consequence of the EPO's holding to its - in his view mistaken - interpretation of them."

    Keywords:

    complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1433


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Article VII (1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires that for a complaint to be receivable the complainant must have 'exhausted such other means of resisting a final decision as are open to him under the applicable staff regulations'. The Tribunal recognises that reasonable time must be allowed for completing the internal appeal procedure. Yet in this case [fifteen months had passed between the date of the complainant's internal appeal and the organization's response to the appeal] objections to receivability ill become the defendant".

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; date; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; reply;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "As to his further claims in his rejoinder, the Tribunal observes that [...] the complainant neither challenged [a given claim] in his internal appeal [...] nor set out the claims in the form introducing the present complaint. He has made the claims in internal appeals which are still pending, and the claims are therefore at present irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; claim; complaint; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant was kept waiting over sixteen months [...] for an answer to his request [...] and fifteen months for the [organisation] to file its reply [...] to his appeal [...] and so let the internal appeal procedure go ahead. The Tribunal holds that since he took all the steps he could take to obtain a final decision and since the [organisation] failed to discharge promptly its obligations under the internal procedure he was justified in coming to the Tribunal. That is in keeping with what the Tribunal ruled in, for example, Judgment 1243 [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1243

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; date; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; reply;



  • Judgment 1431


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The impugned decision having been withdrawn and declared null and void by its author, "whatever his reasons for doing so may have been, the only possible inference is [...] that the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint is therefore irreceivable." The Tribunal need not rule on the substantive question he raises in the absence of any substantive dispute between the parties.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 1429


    79th Session, 1995
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    See Judgment 1244.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1420


    78th Session, 1995
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    See Judgment 1419, consideration 20.

    Keywords:

    complaint; new plea; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; surrejoinder;



  • Judgment 1419


    78th Session, 1995
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "It is inadmissible for the Observatory in its surrejoinder - to which it knows the complainants do not have the opportunity of answering - to raise a new objection to receivability on the strength of facts it was aware of at the time of filing. The plea is the less acceptable for being at odds with the ESO's reply."

    Keywords:

    complaint; new plea; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; surrejoinder;



  • Judgment 1418


    78th Session, 1995
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "The written submissions for which the Tribunal's Statute provides have afforded [the complainant] a further opportunity to gain particulars of the charges and to answer them in full in his rejoinder. The plea of breach of due process cannot be sustained."

    Keywords:

    complaint; due process; iloat statute; right to reply; submissions;



  • Judgment 1413


    78th Session, 1995
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[The complainant's] claim to a higher grade is irreceivable. Even if her career did suffer delay she may not seek redress on that account in the context of the choice of career path; nor may she impugn any decision that she failed to challenge in time or object to her grading as administrative assistant."

    Keywords:

    assignment; career; complaint; delay; post classification; promotion; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1394


    78th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "At the date of filing [...] the decision [the complainant] is impugning did indisputably cause him injury and he was free to challenge it as he saw fit. Yet, though his claim to quashing did then serve some purpose it no longer does so since at his own instance the decision has been withdrawn. There is of course no question of quashing a decision that no longer exists and therefore has no effect in law. So the claim to the quashing of the decision must fail."

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; cause of action; complaint; decision; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 1392


    78th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1391


    78th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Decisions taken by the organisation are subject to review on grounds such as bias, bad faith, malice and abuse of authority. When seeking to defend his interests by impugning any such decision, an employee is entitled to allege and attempt to establish such grounds. A fair decision cannot be reached upon such matters by an internal appeals body or by this Tribunal if witnesses, parties and their representatives are unable to speak candidly and without the risk of incurring a penalty for what they may say, and especially if one party is unduly inhibited by the fear that failure to prove his case my make him liable to disciplinary action by the other party."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; complainant; complaint; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; misuse of authority; submissions; testimony; tribunal;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant was subject to disciplinary action for having made statements, some of them before the Tribunal, which allegedly impaired the organisation's and the Tribunal's reputations. The Disciplinary Committee asked whether the punishment of offensive remarks "for which there is no clear justification supported by evidence" would infringe the complainant's rights. The Tribunal holds that "such a test laid an undue burden on the complainant in that if he was to avoid the risk of disciplinary action he must prove the truth of his allegations. No such burden should have been put on him. The mere failure to prove the truth of his allegations did not mean that he had either abused his freedom of speech or forfeited the immunity or privilege of judicial proceedings."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint; criteria; disciplinary measure; evidence; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; tribunal; vexatious complaint;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "A litigant whose submissions contain language that is unacceptable, or ill-chosen, or damaging, or unseemly, does not thereby lose the immunity that attaches to statements made in judicial proceedings".

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint; freedom of speech; organisation's reputation; submissions; vexatious complaint;



  • Judgment 1379


    78th Session, 1995
    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant "has neither asked for review of [the impugned decision] nor lodged an internal appeal against it. So she has not exhausted the internal means of redress which were available to her, and her complaint is [...] irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1354


    77th Session, 1994
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant is challenging CERN's assignment of him on a career path in keeping with a new advancement scheme. He says the procedure should have been adversarial. The plea fails. "There is no question of any breach of his right to due process." Even discounting his discussions about CERN's provisional determination of his career path, both his internal appeal and the present proceedings "have afforded him ample opportunity to plead his case".

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; assignment; complaint; due process; internal appeal; right to reply;



  • Judgment 1344


    77th Session, 1994
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "It is true that Article VII(1) of the Statute provides that a complaint will not be receivable unless the complainant has exhausted such other means of resisting the decision as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations. But it is plain from the case law that the Tribunal construes that article to mean that when a complainant has done all that is required of him to get a final decision, yet the proceedings appear unlikely to be concluded within a reasonable time, he may appeal directly to the Tribunal".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 451, 499

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1330


    76th Session, 1994
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, receivability does not depend on proving actual and certain injury. All that a complainant need show is that the decision under challenge may impair the rights and safeguards that an international civil servant claims under staff regulations or contract of employment."

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; complaint; contract; injury; receivability of the complaint; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1327


    76th Session, 1994
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Even though later incidents and correspondence may have suggested that there was some possibility of a change in the organization's position", the material decision remained "final" within the meaning of Rule 1230.7.1.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1230.7.1

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; subsequent fact;



  • Judgment 1318


    76th Session, 1994
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration

    Extract:

    "This complainant does not impugn any final decision. [It] is therefore clearly irreceivable, and the Tribunal dismisses it as such in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 8(3) of the Rules of Court."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top