Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 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: 770
< 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, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >
Judgment 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he question of the alleged lack of injury suffered by the complainant in fact relates to the merits of the complaint rather than to its receivability, and the objection to receivability raised must therefore be rejected. Clearly, a complainant has a cause of action when seeking compensation from an organisation for injury that she or he claims to have suffered as a result of an unlawful act on the part of that organisation.
According to a general principle of law which the Tribunal applies in its case law, a claim for compensation can only be granted if the complainant provides evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, 3507, considerations 14 and 15, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3507, 3778, 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4707
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
CERN does not contest that the complainant has personal standing to maintain his complaint. It accepts that the complainant has standing “before the Tribunal in respect of administrative decisions adversely affecting [his] conditions of association” and it refers to Judgment 1166. However, what it does contest concerns the subject matter of the complaint as it is “not related to the Complainant’s conditions of association deriving from his contract or from” the Staff Rules and Regulations (SRR). Part of CERN’s argument in its reply is that payment of subsistence allowances which are the subject of the ceiling, do not derive from the SRR or an appealable decision of the Director-General of CERN (appealable under Article S VI 1.01 of the SRR), but rather are decided upon by an external entity as the employer of the MPA concerned. The pleas on this topic continue in the rejoinder, surrejoinder, further submissions of the complainant and final comments by CERN. Part of the responsive argument of the complainant is that CERN had not provided any proof that the payments of the subsistence allowance of the complainant had been “decided upon by an external entity”.
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, generally, a party making an allegation bears the burden of proving it (unless, of course, it is not contested). This approach has relevance in cases where a defendant organization challenges the receivability of a complaint and that challenge is based on a fact or facts bearing upon receivability. Cases have arisen where such challenges have failed because the defendant organization has not proved a fact underpinning the contention that the complaint was not receivable (see, for example, Judgments 3034, consideration 13, and 2494, consideration 4). If a distinction is drawn between the general arrangement whereby CERN made payments on behalf of third parties which is principally a matter of process, and an alteration, particularly a material one, to the amount of any such payment based on a decision of the third party communicated to CERN then proof of that decision may be required to sustain the objection to receivability of the type advanced by CERN. It is not at all obvious, even implicitly, from the material relied upon by CERN that the alteration, by way of reduction, of the subsistence allowance commencing in 2020 payable to the complainant, was ever considered by the complainant’s Home Institution, an American university. The absence of evidence leaves open the possibility that, as a matter of fact, the reduction in the payment of the subsistence allowance to the complainant was a direct result of the implementation of the general decision to place a ceiling of ordinarily 5,163 Swiss francs on subsistence payments which did not involve any decision-making or instructions by or from the complainant’s Home Institution. But it is unnecessary to explore this issue any further as, for reasons which follow, the complaint should be dismissed on its merits.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2494, 3034
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, pursuant to the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, challengeable before the Tribunal, arose on the expiry of four months from the date on which that internal complaint was lodged, namely on 29 September 2020. Therefore, on 17 December 2020, the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had been exhausted.
The complaint is therefore receivable.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4696
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Eurocontrol submits that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the complainant did not comply with the requirements under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to exhaust the internal means of redress available to him as a former official of the Organisation. However, the Tribunal notes that, pursuant to the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, challengeable before the Tribunal, arose on the expiry of four months from the date on which that internal complaint was lodged, namely on 18 June 2020. Therefore, on 16 September 2020, the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had indeed been exhausted. The complaint is therefore receivable and the objection to receivability raised by the Organisation will be dismissed.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4695
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Eurocontrol submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not comply with the requirements under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to exhaust the internal means of redress available to him as a former official of the Organisation. However, the Tribunal notes that, pursuant to the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, challengeable before the Tribunal, arose on the expiry of four months from the date on which that internal complaint was lodged, namely on 17 June 2020. Therefore, on 15 September 2020, the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had indeed been exhausted. The complaint is therefore receivable and the objection to receivability raised by the Organisation will be dismissed.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he submissions show that no internal complaint challenging this implied or express decision to refuse to regard him as eligible for the arrangements for part-time work on medical grounds was ever made by the complainant at the relevant time, and therefore he did not exhaust the relevant internal means of redress, thus contravening the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Eurocontrol submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not comply with the requirements under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to exhaust the internal means of redress available to him as an official of the Organisation. However, the Tribunal notes that, pursuant to the last sentence of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting the complainant’s internal complaint, challengeable before the Tribunal, arose on the expiry of four months from the date on which that internal complaint was lodged, namely on 10 November 2018. Therefore, on 7 February 2019, the date on which the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal, the internal means of redress available to him had indeed been exhausted. The complaint is therefore receivable and the objection to receivability raised by the Organisation will be dismissed.
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; probationary period; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the strict observance of applicable time limits when challenging an administrative decision. In Judgment 4103, consideration 1, the Tribunal stated the following in this regard:
“The complaint is irreceivable as the complainant failed to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The complainant’s grievance was time-barred when he submitted it [...] on 23 December 2014. Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits. As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective (see Judgment 3758, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
(See also Judgment 4426, consideration 9, in this regard.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758, 4103, 4426
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Tribunal also recalled in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time (see also, to the same effect, Judgment 3704, considerations 2 and 3). The rationale for this principle is that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4672
136th Session, 2023
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the title of his post following his reinstatement.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The refusal to meet the complainant’s request in the letter of 18 July 2019 had no legal effect on the complainant. As neither the impugned decision nor the decision of 12 September 2019 had a legal effect on the complainant, there was no challengeable administrative decision in this case. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords:
administrative decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4661
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and challenges overall the insurance policy.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, must be read in the light of paragraph 1 of that Article and are not applicable unless, as required under paragraph 1, the official concerned has first exhausted the internal remedies available to her or him (see Judgments 4517, consideration 4, and 2631, considerations 3 to 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631, 4517
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4656
136th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: ITU has filed an application for the interpretation of order 2 of the decision contained in Judgment 4515.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]n application is receivable only if the meaning of order 2 gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or purport to such an extent that its execution is impossible (see Judgment 1306, consideration 2) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306
Keywords:
application for interpretation; condition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 20
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that the appeals lodged by the complainants were out of time renders their complaints irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the Organization, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4651
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4650
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4649
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4648
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4647
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed a complaint directly with the Tribunal, impugning what she considers to be the implied rejection of an appeal that she lodged with the Joint Administrative Review Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
< 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, 36, 37, 38, 39 | next >
|
