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

Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 694

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 | next >



  • Judgment 2345


    97th Session, 2004
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1(c)

    Extract:

    "[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
    In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
    As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2324


    97th Session, 2004
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is not in doubt that the quashing or reversing of a decision may result in that decision being deprived of all legal consequences or effects. That is the case, for example, where a decision to withhold an automatic salary increment is reversed with effect from the date on which the increment would otherwise have been payable. In a case of that kind, the subsequent decision deprives the person concerned of a cause of action. And if there is no cause of action when a complaint is filed with this Tribunal, the complaint is, on that account, irreceivable. So much is clear from Judgments 1431 and 2065. But the mere fact that a final and substantive decision has been reversed or withdrawn does not deprive the previous decision of its character as a final and substantive decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1431, 2065

    Keywords:

    cause of action; consequence; decision; effect; lack of injury; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2316


    96th Session, 2004
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;



  • Judgment 2311


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The complaints must [...] be dismissed. Consequently, the applications to intervene filed by interveners whose claims are the same as the complainants' must likewise be dismissed. Insofar as some of the applications to intervene include other claims, they are irreceivable, as are those submitted by unidentified claimants."

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; complaint; difference; identical claims; intervention; official; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2306


    96th Session, 2004
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks the creation of an Office of the Ombudsman. "So far as concerns the claim [...], the complaint is clearly irreceivable. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that [the] claim was made for the first time in the complaint to the Tribunal and, accordingly, no decision could have been made on that issue prior to the filing of the complaint. More importantly, the claim does not concern the non-observance of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the [Organization], they being the only matters upon which this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; iloat; internal appeal; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2297


    96th Session, 2004
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 775

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2290


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Organisation contends that the internal appeal against a decision not to refund medical costs was not lodged in time. In doing so, it takes as the starting point of the time-limit the insurance representative's statement of account rejecting the request for refund. This "plea [...] is unfounded [...] This is because the insurance representative is not an organ of the Organisation, able to take decisions in the meaning of the Office's Service Regulations for Permanent Employees. Decisions concerning insurance benefits are taken by the Office, and more specifically by its President, in accordance with Article 83 of those Regulations."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 83 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; executive head; health insurance; illness; insurance; internal appeal; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2279


    96th Session, 2004
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(b)

    Extract:

    As regards receivability of a complaint challenging an administrative circular, "A distinction needs to be drawn [...] between instructions whose purpose is to tell the Administration how to apply the law, which have no direct bearing on the legal status of staff members, and administrative decisions which impose obligations on staff themselves, particularly decisions affecting an indeterminate number of staff." (in this case, it was an administrative circular dealing with the introduction of an electronic system for recording the attendance of staff members)

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; cause of action; complaint; consequence; effect; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; working hours;



  • Judgment 2255


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 12-13

    Extract:

    "The organization did not contest the receivability of the appeals to the appeals board and does not now contest that the complaints were timely filed in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute. Notwithstanding these facts, however, UNESCO now argues that the internal appeals to the Appeals Board were irreceivable and that accordingly, the complaints to the Tribunal are also irreceivable. [...] In Judgment 522, the Tribunal was faced with the identical situation and held: "There can be no doubt that the appropriate, if not the only, time to take the point was before the Appeals Board, since it is the proceedings before the Board that are said to be out of time [...] and not the proceedings before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has therefore now to consider whether or not justice requires that the organization should be given a second opportunity to take the point. Three factors ought to be considered. The first is whether the point is a clear and compelling one. The second is whether there is an adequate explanation of the organization's failure to take it. The third is whether the complainant may be prejudiced by the organizations's failure.' " The Tribunal applies, in the present case, the criteria set out in Judgment 552.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 522

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date; injury; internal appeal; new plea; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2250


    95th Session, 2003
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    When "the last day of the statutory ninety-day period [is] a holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day, in line with the Tribunal's ruling in Judgments 306 and 517".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517

    Keywords:

    complaint; new time limit; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2244


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Although the disputed decision is regulatory in character, it applies generally to a category of staff members whom it may adversely affect. The case law has it (see Judgments 1451 and 1618) that in such a case there is no need to await an individual decision before an appeal can be considered receivable, and that the staff members concerned have an interest in challenging the lawfulness of the general decision which may affect them. Their complaints are therefore receivable ratione personae."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1451, 1618

    Keywords:

    case law; complainant; complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant;

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 2239


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "Since the complaints fail, so must the applications to intervene, it being noted that certain claims they contain which differ from those submitted in the complaints are in any case irreceivable."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; difference; intervention; new claim; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2236


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The right to intervene in a complaint filed before the Tribunal is available to persons who wish to claim the benefit of the judgment rendered on that complaint, without having themselves exhausted the remedies available to them. since the intervener has availed himself of the internal remedies and filed a complaint before the Tribunal on which judgment is delivered this day, his application to intervene is, therefore, irreceivable."

    Keywords:

    complaint; consequence; effect; intention of parties; internal appeal; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; right; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2232


    95th Session, 2003
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."

    Keywords:

    decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the complainant was not a staff member. "The defendant [...] considers that since the particular case of the Director-General of the Organisation was not expressly provided for in the texts on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based, an express provision recognising its jurisdiction would have been necessary. It points out that [another international organisation] (UNESCO), having realised that it had no statutory provision nor any contractual stipulation attributing jurisdiction in the event of a dispute involving its Director-General, decided in 1999 to include such a clause in the contract it signed with him. whilst the Tribunal does not deny that UNESCO thereby clarified difficulties which were liable to arise, it does not view that as authority for the reverse proposition that contracts containing no such clause, entered into by other organisations with their respective chief administrative officers, must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; decision; exception; executive head; grounds; interpretation; no provision; organisation; provision; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; written rule;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability because the matter was not referred to the Appeals Council. "In the present case, that procedure was not and clearly could not have been followed. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the Director-General, stripped of his functions, could have appealed to the Appeals Council established under his own authority, against a decision of the Conference of the States parties, with a view to obtaining a final decision by the new Director-General. [...] An appeal to the Appeals Council was inconceivable, and the impugned decision was clearly a final decision - within the meaning of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute [...] in that situation, a direct appeal to the Tribunal [...] was clearly the only remedy available to the complainant."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; competence; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; member state; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2223


    95th Session, 2003
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director-General [did not initiate] the appeal procedure invalidates the defendant's argument that internal remedies were not exhausted, although they should have been as required by article vii of the Tribunal's Statute. While it is regrettable that the case was never brought before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, this does not prevent the Tribunal from ruling on the merits of the complaint, which has been filed within the applicable rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; consequence; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 2222


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Referring to the Tribunal's case law, in particular Judgments 70 and 1543, the defendant submits that the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, does not extend to disputes regarding the Director-General's discretion to waive diplomatic immunity. It is worth noting that the complainant does not in fact [...] challenge the decision to waive his diplomatic immunity in itself. He rather challenges the circumstances in which that decision was taken, which in his view violated his contractual rights or those arising from the general principles of law which should be observed by international organisations. Since the case law referred to by the defendant does not apply, the Tribunal is of the view that only a consideration of the merits of the case may show whether the complainant's allegations are well founded."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 70, 1543

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; competence of tribunal; complainant; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; general principle; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right; terms of appointment; waiver of immunity;



  • Judgment 2219


    95th Session, 2003
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 2218


    95th Session, 2003
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Organization argues that the complainant submitted new "conclusions" to the Tribunal, compared to those he had put forward in his internal appeal [...]. In fact, the complainant's pleas, whether in the internal appeal or before the Tribunal, consist in challenging the decision taken regarding his grade and in obtaining a position in the normal salary scale at the level closest to the salary he had been receiving in the previous system. His request to be placed at a graded level within the new scale instead of one altogether outside the scale cannot properly be considered as going beyond the claims he had submitted in the internal appeals proceedings".

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; complaint; decision; identical claims; iloat; internal appeal; interpretation; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2213


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The financial claims the complainant submits in his application for review are greater than those he put forward in the proceedings of the judgment he wants to have reviewed. "To that extent, they are [...] irreceivable on the grounds that internal remedies have not been exhausted."

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for review; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2210


    94th Session, 2003
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(c) and (d)

    Extract:

    The Agency considers that the complainant has no cause of action (to challenge the outcome of a competition) since she holds a post corresponding to her wishes and did not apply for a post which is, according to the organisation, very similar to the disputed post. The Tribunal states that: "all staff members are entitled to compete in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions. Staff members are free to choose whether or not to apply for a competition, provided that they do not abuse this right."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; cause of action; competition; post; receivability of the complaint; right;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 | next >


 
Last updated: 06.05.2021 ^ top