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 1203


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    The complainants went on strike and the organisation sent them an "open letter" and individual letters drawing their attention to their obligations under the rules. Those are the letters they impugn. According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute what a complainant is required to impugn is a "decision". "As was held in Judgment 112, a plea to quash may be directed only against a decision, that is, 'an act deciding a question in a specific case'. And in Judgment 532 the Tribunal construed the term to mean 'any action by an officer of the organisation that has a legal effect'. In sum, a decision is any act by the defendant organisation that has an effect on an official's rights and obligations." In this case "the Tribunal finds nothing in either the individual letters or the open one that it may properly construe as a 'decision' within the above definition."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 112, 532

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; application for quashing; case law; cause of action; decision; definition; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1181


    73rd Session, 1992
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complaint raises a question of receivability. Under Article 43 (1) of the Staff Regulations an internal appeal must be lodged within thirty days of the date on which a decision was notified. The complainant pleads that he made a material mistake by reading the thirty days as one calendar month. "Time limits for internal appeals must be strictly complied with. The complainant failed to abide by the Staff Regulations, and the mistake he supposedly made is irrelevant because the organization did not seek to mislead him. Since he has not exhausted the internal means of redress, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 43 OF THE INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    date of notification; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1176


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "The complainant has brought two similar complaints challenging [the same] decision. [...] He explains that since the time limit for answering his internal appeal ran out [...] he inferred rejection and filed a complaint. He then left on holiday and not until he got back - by which time his first complaint had already been filed - did he receive the letter of rejection. So it was only by way of precaution that he filed the second complaint, within the time limit, against that express decision. In the circumstances the two complaints are receivable and may be joined."

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1167


    73rd Session, 1992
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "All that is needed for [an] appeal to be receivable is that the impugned decision be clearly identified and the pleas set out.

    Keywords:

    condition; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1166


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The organization challenges the Tribunal's competence on the grounds that it has no employment relationship with the complainant: an unpaid associate like him does not serve CERN and is not subject to its rules, and the organization does not pay the complainant for his work. The plea fails. [...] It is not in dispute that CERN has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as indeed is reflected in Rule VI 1.05 of its Staff Rules. Moreover, the complainant, who belongs to the staff of CERN as an unpaid associate, is alleging non-observance of provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations. As for his not working for CERN, not being subject to its rules and not getting payment from it, those are issues that have a bearing, not on the Tribunal's competence, but on the receivability of his complaint. The Tribunal has jurisdiction."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CERN STAFF RULE VI 1.05

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; receivability of the complaint; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    "The organization contends that the complaint is irreceivable. In its submission the complainant has no locus standi because he was not an official of CERN, had no relationship of employment with it, did not work for it and was subject to its rules only to a strictly limited extent. [...] In accordance with the terms of his appointment and [the relevant] Staff Rules the complainant was [...] free to [...] lodge a complaint as a member of CERN's staff. [...] But the complaint is irreceivable for another reason [...] the decision he impugns is irrelevant to his contract with CERN".

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; decision; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 1160


    72nd Session, 1992
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "Further claims [from one of the complainants] to a ruling on the Organization's alleged failure to deal with the issues in his statements of appeal and to 'directions' to the administration 'in the interest of justice' do not constitute proper forms of relief and therefore will not be entertained."

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1149


    72nd Session, 1992
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "According to the case law, the scope of claims to the Tribunal may not go beyond that of the claims that formed part of the internal appeal, since any claim that goes further is barred under the rule in Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute that the complainant must have exhausted the internal means of redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    case law; claim; iloat statute; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1145


    72nd Session, 1992
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant's claim to reinstatement is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because it has not formed part of any internal 'complaint' from him under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations and he has therefore failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    complaint; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1141


    72nd Session, 1992
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "According to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint shall not be receivable unless the official has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable staff regulations. The purpose is twofold: the official should first avail himself of any opportunities he may have within the organisation for obtaining redress; then, if he presses his case, the Tribunal should have at its disposal full records on the administrative handling of the dispute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1140


    72nd Session, 1992
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The time limit for filing a complaint must be strictly respected and may be waived neither by the parties nor by the Tribunal: a heavy workload affords no valid excuse for failing to meet it. Since the complainant failed to lodge a timely complaint with the Tribunal [...] his claim became time- barred."

    Keywords:

    complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1134


    72nd Session, 1992
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "In keeping with precedent and with [Article] VII(1) [of the Statute] a complaint will be irreceivable if it challenges a general decision that must ordinarily be put into effect by individual decisions against which internal appeal will lie."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; condition; general decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff union;



  • Judgment 1132


    72nd Session, 1992
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The case law makes it clear that time limits in rules on internal appeals must be strictly adhered to. The complainant did not comply with the requirements of the Service Regulations. Nor can he show any breach of good faith on the organisation's part. His complaint is therefore 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:

    exception; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1125


    71st Session, 1991
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant wants the Organisation to continue making contributions into a savings fund for the benefit of her heirs after the date of her retirement. "[H]er own lack of financial entitlement does not bar her from asking the Tribunal to enforce a provision of the material regulations."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; receivability of the complaint; successor;



  • Judgment 1124


    71st Session, 1991
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "There is no rule against making two claims in the context of one and the same complaint if they are addressed to one and the same organisation, and the combining of the two disputes between the parties is no bar to receivability."

    Keywords:

    complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1122


    71st Session, 1991
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012

    Keywords:

    adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complaints are challenging pay slips [reflecting the so-called 'Eurocontrol reduction'], of which the latest date back to September 1989, and they were filed on 27 August 1990, long after the time limits had expired." They are irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    adjustment; complaint; pay slip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1117


    71st Session, 1991
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "The complainants took the view that according to the principle of equal treatment embodied in the Staff Regulations, they were entitled not only to arrears of pay but also to interest thereon. They were free to conclude that the competent authority had, to quote Article 92(2), 'failed to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations' and that they therefore had the right to appeal directly to the Tribunal against the refusal of their claims." The conclusion is that without submitting a 92(1) claim to the Director General they did exhaust the internal means of redress.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92(1) AND (2) OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "According to Article 92 of the Staff Regulations the gist of the internal appeal procedure is that before lodging an internal complaint the staff member shall submit his grievances or claims to the administration to enable it to take a decision. That is what the complainants did since Eurocontrol had the opportunity of stating its position." The organisation's objections to receivability on the grounds that the complainants did not exhaust the internal means of redress by putting their claims to the Director General as provided by Article 92(1) fails.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92(1) OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1115


    71st Session, 1991
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    As the complaint was filed on the ninetieth day after the date of notification of the impugned decision, it is receivable in keeping with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES


    Keywords:

    date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Appeal Board, which had new evidence before it, agreed to reopen the internal proceedings. It then reported that it was unable to make a further recommendation. The Director General took no further express decision. But that "does not preclude the complainant from impugning the implied decision that followed the resumption of hearings by the Board on the strength of new evidence. The outcome of the resumed hearings must be subject to review by the Tribunal even though the implied decision is the same in purport as the original decision."

    Keywords:

    case reopened; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeals body; new time limit; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1109


    71st Session, 1991
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "By the date of filing [his first complaint], 15 March 1990, the complainant had lodged with the organisation one request for review under Article 13.1 of the Staff Regulations and another under Paragraph 15 of Circular 334 [on personal promotion]. Only afterwards, on 2 April, did he file an internal 'complaint' under Article 13.2. So he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires him to do." The first complaint is irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 13.1 AND 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS; ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 1106


    71st Session, 1991
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES


    Keywords:

    date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."

    Keywords:

    complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1104


    71st Session, 1991
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant was asked to report to an expert medical examination to examine his fitness for shift work. He objects to questions the organization put to the expert. Though the complaint is receivable, the Tribunal dismisses it on the merits since the material questions were relevant to the dispute and did not deprive the complainant of any safeguard. Once the medical expert has reported and the administrative decision been taken, the complainant may submit a further complaint bearing on the dispute as a whole.

    Keywords:

    expert inquiry; incapacity; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; safeguard;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant having refused to undergo examination by a medical expert to determine whether he was fit for shift work, the organization ordered him to undergo examination or incur the risk of disciplinary sanction. The appeals body took the same view and the Director-General endorsed its recommendation. That is the decision under challenge. CERN submits that the complaint shows no cause of action because the impugned decision does not directly affect the complainant. Though merely preparatory decisions are not ordinarily actionable, the Tribunal treats this case as an exception: the complainant has been issued a warning which in itself causes him injury.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; injury; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint;

< 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