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 2061


    91st Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal [...] does not have the authority to issue recommendations about an organisation's general policy."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; recommendation;



  • 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 13

    Extract:

    "The complainant asks that the defendant be ordered to publish a denial of the accusations made in [a flash published by the staff union]. It is not, however, for the Tribunal to issue such an injunction."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; moral injury; publication; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff union;

    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 2057


    91st Session, 2001
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal found in Judgment 1682, confirming the precedent in Judgment 1329 [...], a line of argument cannot be entertained that would allow appeals to lie sine die against past decisions in a matter as delicate as the setting and periodic adjustment of staff pay."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1329, 1682

    Keywords:

    adjustment; case law; decision; period; receivability of the complaint; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2039


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; case law; collective bargaining; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2037


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.

    Keywords:

    appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2036


    90th Session, 2001
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Members of an advisory body are entitled to challenge a measure (for which an advisory opinion should have been sought) on the grounds that prior consultation with the advisory body did not take place.

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; complainant; consultation; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2027


    90th Session, 2001
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;



  • Judgment 2011


    90th Session, 2001
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528

    Keywords:

    case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2008


    90th Session, 2001
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[The organization] submits that the Tribunal is not competent to entertain the complaint because, having left [the organization] many years ago the complainant is not in a position to assert any statutory or contractual rights: he benefited from a special extra-statutory arrangement made ex gratia and may not assert for his family any right arising under the terms of his appointment. The objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction fails: [the organization] allowed its former employee to retain coverage by a health insurance scheme which he had originally been able to join only because of his employment relationship with [it]. Whether the continued protection he was granted albeit ex gratia may also be extended to his family can be determined only by ascertaining his rights as a former employee of the organization."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complainant; ex gratia; extension of contract; health insurance; locus standi; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; right; status of complainant; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1986


    89th Session, 2000
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision not to decide upon a request by an employee for the exercise of his alleged rights is nonetheless a decision. It may accordingly be impugned before the Tribunal but only within the time limits prescribed by Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute; those limits started to run on 18 November 1997. They were not suspended or revived by the complainants' repeated requests to the administration or by the latter's repeated refusals to make any substantive decision until the matter had been decided by the Council of the organisation. If the complainants were dissatisfied with the Director-General's decision not to decide, they should have filed their complaints with the Tribunal within ninety days of receiving such decision. Since they did not do so, they must now wait until they receive a substantive decision on the merits of their claim."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1983


    89th Session, 2000
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant's contract was not extended. "It is true that the complainant was aware of the organization's intentions, having been informed of them several times, in particular, in a talk with the Director of the [organization's] service in France on 6 November 1997 and by the fax messages of 11 and 20 November 1997. Nevertheless, she was right to wait for official notification of an administrative decision from the competent authorities of [the organization] before challenging the measure. Although the letter of 16 January 1998 signed by the Director of the [organization's] service in France appears to be merely a letter of confirmation, it is the only official administrative decision adversely affecting the complainant. Her letter of 6 February 1998 seeking a review of it was therefore in time."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 1980


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

    Considerations 5 and 10

    Extract:

    "The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. [...] The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground." The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;



  • Judgment 1979


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935

    Keywords:

    binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;



  • 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;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."

    Keywords:

    career; cause of action; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability of the complaint;



  • 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 1929


    88th Session, 2000
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "It is not in the interests of the complainant to seek a ruling in law [...] when in practice he can obtain the quashing of the decision and redress."

    Keywords:

    claim; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right;



  • Judgment 1927


    88th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "While the complaint may seem to show no cause of action, since the decision to suspend him has been revoked, the measure did have material - although not financial - and particularly moral consequences during the period for which it was in effect. Certain of the complainant's duties were withdrawn, although he continued to receive full pay. In these conditions, the complaint does still show cause for action [...]."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; consequence; decision; injury; material injury; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; suspension; withdrawal of decision;



  • Judgment 1897


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

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As the organisation did not contest the receivability of a premature appeal [...] during the internal procedure, the principle of good faith prevents it from doing so subsequently."

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1888


    87th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Both the Regional Board and the Headquarters Board of Appeal made a specific finding that the appeals were receivable, but the Tribunal's case law establishes that notwithstanding such findings it is still open to the organization to submit the question of the receivability of the internal appeal to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 575

    Keywords:

    case law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; report; 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: 18.05.2021 ^ top