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 112


    18th Session, 1967
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "A plea to quash can be directed only against a decision, that is, against an act deciding a question in a specific case." A performance report embodies no decision capable of being rescinded. A complaint seeking such relief is not receivable.

    Keywords:

    application for quashing; competence of tribunal; condition; decision; performance report; probation report; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 111


    17th Session, 1967
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "It is a rule generally recognised by the courts that a complainant is not entitled to refer to the courts in a single complaint two or more different decisions having no connection with each other. In such a case, the court can examine the complaint only in respect of the first decision specified therein."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 108


    17th Session, 1967
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Once the complainant did not ask for a hearing within the [...] time limit provided for [under the material provision], the appeal which he later instituted [...] was not receivable [...]. Consequently [...] insofar as it sought to resist the Director-General's decision to accept the opinion of the Appeals Board recognising that it was irreceivable the complaint is unfounded and must be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 91


    16th Session, 1966
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "As regards the arguments based on equity which the complainant puts forward in favour of a review of his grievances, the Tribunal cannot take these arguments into account since the time limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal is mandatory; it is binding on the complainant and cannot be extended by the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 87


    15th Session, 1965
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The complainant's counsel, after the close of the last public hearing, submitted ten documents which had not been communicated to the agent of the organization and upon which he therefore had no opportunity to comment. In conformity with the principle that each party shall be fully heard on all the evidence admitted, these documents were excluded from the dossier on which the Tribunal took its decision."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 85


    14th Session, 1965
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    A letter sent by the organisation to the complainant effectively rescinded the decision and therefore invalidated the appeal, insofar as it is directed against that decision. It also "gave [the complainant] an opportunity of choosing between three possible courses of action; on this point the letter itself involved no decision and could not therefore be submitted to the Administrative Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 82


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The interveners [A and B], to whom [the] judgment [the application of which is requested] had awarded reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them, are holders of rights liable to be affected by the present judgment [...]. On the other hand, the interveners [X, Y and Z], insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right of that kind, and the staff association has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    cause of action; injury; intervention; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant requests compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the delay by the organisation in giving effect to the judgment. Intervenors x,y and z, insofar as they are acting on their own behalf, do not enjoy any right liable to be affected by the present judgment; they are also acting on behalf of the staff, who have no cause to intervene in the present proceedings. Their interventions are accordingly not receivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    cause of action; intervention; lack of injury; locus standi; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The interveners submitted a document on 2 April. On 10 April the judgment was delivered, after the public hearing of 6 April. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage; "that does not necessarily mean that interveners are entitled to invoke up to the day of the proceedings any facts, evidence and new documents. [The material document] deals solely with points of law and raises no new points. Consequently [...] the organisation, [which] learned of this legal opinion three days before the oral proceedings began, has been able usefully to discuss the arguments and the conclusions. The [adversarial] procedure has thus been [followed]".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; intervention; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 81


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The complainant is attempting to deduce rights from clauses to which her husband could not have had recourse [...] the decisions relating to the application of the new pensions scheme were not contested by [the person concerned] within the period of 90 days prescribed by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and these decisions, which thus became final in regard to [the person concerned], had the effect of irrevocably altering, before the date of his death, both the terms of his contract of appointment and the provisions of the regulations applicable in his case" - the person concerned could not, immediately before his death, have invoked in his favour the regulations in question. Nor is the complainant entitled to do so now.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; enforcement; receivability of the complaint; successor; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 80


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Decisions of a general nature "could be contested before the Tribunal only within the period of 90 days specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...]. The said decisions were not contested within the required time; they became final so far as the complainant is concerned and irrevocably modified, prior to the date on which her pension rights were settled, both the terms of her contract of appointment and the regulations applicable in her case."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; complaint; general decision; pension; pension entitlements; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The Staff Regulations of the organisation and the regulations for its staff superannuation and benevolent funds expressly recognise the Tribunal's competence. "Since the present complaint emanates from a former official of [the organisation] and concerns the settlement of her pension rights, the Tribunal is competent to hear it."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; locus standi; pension; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; retirement; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 75


    12th Session, 1964
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant's status must be regarded as purely contractual. "It is of little account that the [...] contract describes the complainant as a medical officer. This title relates solely to the nature of the work to be performed by the complainant, but does not affect his legal status. On the contrary, his legal status is defined [in the contract] which stipulates that "the present contract does not confer upon the holder the title of official of the [...] organization." [The Tribunal is not competent].

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 71


    12th Session, 1964
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It results from an examination of the correspondence exchanged between the organization and the complainant that no legal relationship whatsoever was ever established between [the complainant and the organization]; that consequently, the complainant cannot be considered as an official of the organization in the sense of [...] Article II, paragraph 6, [of the Statute of the Tribunal]; and that, therefore, his complaint is not receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    candidate; competence of tribunal; external candidate; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 70


    12th Session, 1964
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration II (2)

    Extract:

    "The Director-General's power to decide in any case submitted to him whether or not [the] conditions [for waiver of immunity] apply is, in view of its specific character which necessarily involves relations between the organisation and a third party, completely beyond the control of the Administrative Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint; discretion; judicial review; member state; organisation; privileges and immunities; receivability of the complaint; waiver of immunity;



  • Judgment 68


    12th Session, 1964
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant does not supply any shred of proof of the existence of the contract of employment which he alleges was concluded verbally between him and [the organization]." The Co-ordination Committee for International Voluntary Work Camps is a non-governmental organization and is not a service of [the organization]. Neither the fact of maintaining consultative relations with the organization nor the fact of executing tasks and of submitting reports in return for a fee paid by the organization has the effect of conferring on the agents of the Committee the status of employees of the organization. The complaint is irreceivable.

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; evidence; lack of evidence; locus standi; non official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 61


    10th Session, 1962
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The interventions of Messrs. X and Y, on behalf of the staff association, are not receivable, since the association "has no cause to intervene in the present proceedings". In as far as the interveners "acted on their own behalf, they have rights which may be affected by this judgment, and their intervention is receivable in as far as the [...] Tribunal is competent to pass judgment on the complaint itself."

    Keywords:

    intervention; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff union;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The said letter, whatever its intent, constitutes an individual decision in respect of which non-observance of the terms of the complainant's appointment as laid down in his contract and in relevant regulations is alleged; hence the Tribunal is competent, under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to proceed to review it."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 59


    10th Session, 1962
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The complainant's letter [...] contained neither the grounds of his proposed claim nor any indication of the arguments upon which he proposed to support it, and cannot be accepted by the Tribunal as being a complaint fulfilling the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; elements; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to enlarge the period of 90 days which Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal lays down as the period within which a decision complained of can be appealed and the [complaint] must be dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint; mandatory time limit; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 55


    9th Session, 1961
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As the complaint was not filed within the time limit provided for under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it is not receivable. "It is to no purpose that the complainant alleges that she was unaware of the conditions under which she had access to the Tribunal, since she had been provided with a copy of the Staff Rules of the organization, articles [...] of which make provision both for access to the Tribunal and for the availability of the Statute of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; duty to inform; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 53


    9th Session, 1961
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant was appointed in the grade of P.1 and accepted such appointment. Had he considered that the classification of his post did not accurately reflect the type and level of his duties and responsibilities and the qualifications required of him, it was open to him [...] to request at any time a re-examination of the classification of the post he occupied, and this he did not do. Consequently his submission in respect of incorrect grading must also be set aside."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; internal remedies exhausted; post classification; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 51


    8th Session, 1960
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The intervenors hold the same rights as the complainant and therefore their intervention must be declared receivable and the benefit of this judgment extended to them."

    Keywords:

    consequence; effect; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 45


    8th Session, 1960
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The letter in question "merely informed [the complainant] that at that stage of the proceedings the organization thought that no useful purpose would be served by continuing to correspond with her on any matters relating to her case except insofar as such correspondence related directly to the claims pending before the [appeals body]. There is nothing in that letter adversely affecting the rights of [the complainant]; consequently, it does not constitute an administrative decision that can be brought in issue before the Tribunal and the complaint is [...] not receivable."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; lack of injury; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 41


    8th Session, 1960
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It is established by the documents in the dossier that [the complainant] submitted her requests concerning reinstatement or the grant of compensation neither to the Director-General nor to the [appeals body], so that when she applied to the Tribunal she had not exhausted all the means of resisting the decision that were open to her under the [Staff] Regulations; the [...] submissions are therefore not receivable."

    Keywords:

    complaint; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; 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: 18.05.2021 ^ top