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 4134


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Some principles in the case law of the Tribunal should be noted [...]. The first is, as observed in Judgment 1266, consideration 24, that:
    “[...] by incorporating the standards of the common system in its own rules the [organization] has assumed responsibility towards its staff for any unlawful elements that those standards may contain or entail. Insofar as such standards are found to be flawed they may not be imposed on the staff and [the organization] must if need be replace them with provisions that comply with the law of the international civil service. That is an essential feature of the principles governing the international legal system the Tribunal is called upon to safeguard.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1266

    Keywords:

    general decision; receivability of the complaint; un common system;



  • Judgment 4131


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the President of the Office to reject his appeal against the referral of his case to the Appeals Committee.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complaint is irreceivable. Although the complainant has formally exhausted the internal means of redress available to him, his internal appeal was directed against what was merely a step in the process which would culminate in a final decision on his appeal. According to the case law, the steps leading to a final decision can be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning that final decision (see, for example, Judgment 3961, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein; Judgment 3958, consideration 15; and Judgment 3860, considerations 5 and 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3860, 3958, 3961

    Keywords:

    final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4126


    127th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC who had separated from service in October 2015, challenges the rejection of his harassment complaint filed in March 2018 against the President of the Staff Union Council.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complaint is irreceivable. Although Section 4 of Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005 states that it applies to former staff members, it is firmly established in the case law that the rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute (see, for example, Judgment 3889, under 3). Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging “non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant, a former official of the ICC, does not allege any breach of his terms of appointment or of ICC Staff Rules applicable to him while he was still an ICC official. His complaint, which does not fall within the competence of the Tribunal, is therefore clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules; Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3889

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; former official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4121


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; pay slip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4120


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Staff representatives have a legitimate and important role in the functioning of international organisations. However there are limits to that role, at least as may involve rights enforceable in proceedings in the Tribunal. In its reasoning the IAC referred to Judgment 2919 of this Tribunal in support of a widely cast role for staff representatives. However, the effect of that judgment may have been misunderstood and, in any event, the Tribunal has recently indicated that Judgment 2919, if read too widely, went beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence (see Judgment 3515, consideration 3). In the present case, whether Article 120(a) of the Service Regulations had been applied correctly or incorrectly to the individual the subject of the internal audit was not a matter in respect of which the complainant had an interest capable of being pursued in a complaint to this Tribunal. Nor did the complainant have an enforceable right to obtain the results of the internal audit. Accordingly the complainant has no cause of action and his complaint in the Tribunal is irreceivable (see Judgment 3426, consideration 16). Thus, the complaint should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2919, 3426, 3515

    Keywords:

    cause of action; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4119


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that a member of staff cannot challenge, by way of a complaint in the Tribunal, a general decision unless and until it is applied to that staff member with adverse legal consequences (see Judgment 4016, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). That case law is rooted in the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to deal with disputes concerning, relevantly, the alleged non-observance of the Staff Regulations or of the official’s terms of appointment. In a case such as the present there would have been, at least arguably, a non-observance of the Service Regulations at the moment the complainant was not paid the allowance because of the age of his children. That might have been so because, amongst other reasons, the amendment was not lawfully made or the Service Regulations, properly construed, conferred the allowance beyond the time identified in the amended Circular. However before the payment of the allowance ceased, no issue would arise about the non-observance of the Service Regulations. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4016

    Keywords:

    allowance; cause of action; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4118


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; implied decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 4114


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The fifth complaint is irreceivable because the complainant had not, at the time of its filing, exhausted internal means of redress. The complainant argues that he had, because Article 110(2)(c) of the Service Regulations says, in relation to certain specified decisions, they are excluded from the internal appeal procedure, including “decisions taken after consultation of the Disciplinary Committee”. However the Tribunal has held in Judgment 3888, consideration 9, that Article 110 of the Service Regulations does not absolve a complainant from the need to seek a review to satisfy the Tribunal’s jurisdictional threshold that a complainant must have exhausted internal means of redress. The complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3888

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4113


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complaint form and the complainant’s pleas (both his brief and rejoinder) do not identify with any particularity precisely what the decision is that he seeks to impugn in these proceedings. The EPO challenges the receivability of the complaint. Viewing the complaint form and the complainant’s pleas as benevolently as possible in the circumstances, his complaint either challenges the decision not to promote him or the decision not to accede to his request for an expedited hearing of his appeal or, perhaps, both. The latter decision is not a final administrative decision with operative legal effect. At best, it was a decision made as a step towards a final administrative decision, had one ever been made in his internal appeal (see Judgment 3890, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3890

    Keywords:

    final decision; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;



  • Judgment 4112


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests retroactively his promotions.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The EPO was correct in dismissing the internal appeal as time-barred. In the result, internal means of redress have not been exhausted and the complaint is irreceivable. For this reason, the complaint should be dismissed.

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4103


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him mission status during the first six months of his assignment to a field post.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    [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).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    It must be noted that Article II [of the Tribunal’s Statute] does not specify which organ of the organization must take a challengeable administrative decision and, therefore, introducing any such limitation based on the internal rules of an international organization is incompatible with the Tribunal’s Statute. It is also worth noting that in consideration 2 of Judgment 580, delivered in public on 20 December 1983, the Tribunal stated the following:
    “Who took the decision is not a question on which the Tribunal’s competence, as defined in Article II(1) of its Statute, depends. The article merely says that the Tribunal may hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. An appeal may therefore lie to the Tribunal against a decision by any authority which a complainant accuses of having infringed the terms of his appointment or the provisions of the Staff Regulations. The decision challenged in this case is just such a decision since the complainant is alleging that the Governing Body acted in breach of a rule he infers from Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations.
    There is therefore no need to consider whether the Tribunal is competent to review measures which the Governing Body takes in the exercise of its rule-making authority.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580

    Keywords:

    final decision; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4075


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to amend the methodology used for the calculation of the tax equalization payments made to eligible staff members.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that “a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to [the complainant]” (see, for example, Judgments 3427, under 31, 4028, under 3, 3628, under 4, and 3291, under 8). It is clear that the decision to amend the calculation of the tax equalization payments is a decision of general application that would necessarily require implementation through an individual decision to have any effect on a staff member. It follows that the decision was not open to challenge by the complainant until the new methodology was applied to calculate the amount of the tax equalization payment due to her for a particular year. This was not the case at the time the complainant submitted her Request for Resolution. Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints “alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment [...] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations”. As the Administration’s [...] decision was a decision of general application and was not applied to the complainant through an individual decision, the complaint is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence and is irreceivable and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 3427, 3628, 4028

    Keywords:

    general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; tax; tax equalization;



  • Judgment 4074


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to review or amend the separation agreement offered to him and to terminate his appointment without the appropriate financial package.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the internal consideration of his grievance. The Global Fund argues this claim is irreceivable. Routinely and necessarily such a claim can only first be made in the Tribunal. The claim is receivable. The Global Fund contends the internal appeal process took 11 months, which was reasonable. The complainant draws attention to the fact that there was a period of nearly 18 months between the public delivery of the Tribunal’s judgment and the final decision of the Executive Director. Even taking that longer period, significant periods of time can be attributed to the conduct of the complainant or his counsel, particularly the time taken to respond to a Global Fund proposal concerning informal discussions to resolve the matter in the first half of 2015. The internal appeal took approximately 11 months. This is a lengthy period but, in all the circumstances including the factual and legal complexity of the proceedings, it was not unreasonable. The claim for moral damages for excessive delay is rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaint, namely that the complainant, by signing the separation agreement, waived his right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainant contends that he signed this agreement as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated his consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3424, consideration 12). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreement, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainant’s pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaints, namely that the complainants, by signing the separation agreements, waived their right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainants contend that they signed these agreements as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated their consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3423, consideration 13). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreements, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainants’ pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3610, 3750

    Keywords:

    agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4065


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;

< 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