ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Additional written submissions (794,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Additional written submissions
Total judgments found: 11

  • Judgment 4458


    133rd Session, 2022
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the setting aside of the information circular which, according to her, announced the closure of the UNESCO Commissary.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    UNESCO has requested that the complainantís further submissions and the appended documents be disregarded. It argues that their submission, as an exception to the rule under which proceedings before the Tribunal are ordinarily limited to the filing of two briefs by each of the parties, is not warranted by exceptional circumstances, as required by the precedent set, in particular, by Judgment 1684. This request cannot be granted, since the submission in question was, in this case, duly authorised by the President of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In his [...] letter [...], counsel for the complainant requested the Tribunal to disregard various arguments put in UNESCOís final observations on the ground that those arguments, relating to the receivability of the complaint and the Tribunalís jurisdiction to hear it, were not specifically intended to respond to the [...] further submissions. However, while it would certainly not have been permissible for UNESCO to raise new objections to receivability at that stage of the proceedings, it cannot be considered improper for it to have used this final submission, as it did in this case, to expand its arguments relating to the objections raised in its previous submissions, since the President of the Tribunal did not require it to restrict the scope of its final observations to the new points contained in the complainantís further submissions. It should also be pointed out that those observations could not have had a decisive influence on the outcome of this case, because in any event it is for the Tribunal to ascertain of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction to hear the complaints submitted to it.

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions;



  • Judgment 4457


    133rd Session, 2022
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In its further submissions, UNESCO has requested that the Tribunal disregard the last paragraph of the complainantís rejoinder, in which his representative discloses the content of exchanges between the parties made in the context of an attempt to settle the dispute amicably.
    The complainantís objection to the receivability of this request Ė in which he seeks to rely on the Tribunalís case law set out, in particular, in Judgment 3648, consideration 5, according to which an organisation may not raise an objection to receivability in its surrejoinder where it could have done so in its reply Ė is unfounded. It is true that what was held with regard to the surrejoinder would likewise apply to such further submissions. However, the request in question cannot be regarded as an objection to receivability and is based, moreover, on new information provided by the complainant in his rejoinder. The request is therefore admissible, even though it would have been more natural for UNESCO to make it in the surrejoinder.
    As it is, the request is justified. As the Tribunal has already stated, since the confidentiality of amicable dispute settlement procedures must be preserved to increase the likelihood of their success, information relating to any negotiations conducted by the parties with a view to resolving a dispute referred to the Tribunal must not be disclosed in the proceedings before it (see Judgment 3586, consideration 5).
    The aforementioned paragraph of the rejoinder, which should indeed be disregarded, will not therefore be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3648

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; confidentiality; rejoinder; settlement agreement;



  • Judgment 1684


    84th Session, 1998
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's rules provide ordinarily for the filing of only two briefs by each party. There are no exceptional circumstances warranting a third one from the complainant, and since the arguments in it are immaterial the President of the Tribunal has disallowed it under Article 9(6)" of the Tribunal's Rules.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; closure of written proceedings; condition; exception; iloat statute; president of the tribunal; refusal; submissions;



  • Judgment 1468


    80th Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The case turns on a question whose answer may affect another official adversely. "She is invited to make such submissions to the Tribunal as she thinks fit, and to do so within thirty days of her receiving the text of the present judgment, which is an interlocutory order. The Union and the complainant may each file observations within a time limit of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of her submissions."

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; staff member's interest; submissions; time limit;



  • Judgment 1417


    78th Session, 1995
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; time limit;



  • Judgment 1226


    74th Session, 1993
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainants apply for hearings. They have already had the opportunity of enlarging on their original submissions and on their rejoinders and of commenting on the ample evidence at their disposal. They sought leave to file submissions in answer to the surrejoinder and the disclosure of additional information and items. The interlocutory judgment granted the parties leave to file further submissions, which are now before the Tribunal. It therefore has all the material required for a final ruling. It dismisses the complainants' application as pointless."

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; oral proceedings; refusal; submissions; tribunal;



  • Judgment 989


    68th Session, 1990
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Before ruling on this case the Tribunal wishes to have further submissions".

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order;



  • Judgment 595


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The purpose of the procedural rules the Tribunal applies is to enable the parties not only to submit full pleadings but also to hold an exchange of briefs in which they enjoy complete freedom of speech. [...] As a rule the Tribunal allows each side to file no more than two briefs and closes the written proceedings after the defendant has filed the surrejoinder. only in exceptional cases does it admit further material."

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; closure of written proceedings; exception; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;



  • Judgment 570


    51st Session, 1983
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The procedure "open to an applicant or complainant when the surrejoinder contains an irregularity or states a material fact not previously mentioned which the applicant/complainant wishes to challenge [...] is [...] to notify the registrar without any accompanying argument that he objects to the irregularity or disputes the fact, as the case may be. If then the Tribunal considers that further pleadings are necessary, the President will notify the parties in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; further submissions; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 365


    41st Session, 1978
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Although there have been no oral proceedings, there are no grounds for allowing the complainants' application for permission to submit a further memorandum. The complaints raise purely legal questions which can be settled on the basis of the written evidence alone. The complainants ought to have been aware of that, and in their original memoranda put forward all the pleas which they thought relevant to their case."

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; complainant; refusal; tribunal;



  • Judgment 204


    30th Session, 1973
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary of facts (J)

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has disregarded the complainant's four additional memoranda [...] addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal after the complainant had been informed that the proceedings were closed."

    Keywords:

    additional written submissions; admissibility of evidence; closure of written proceedings; refusal; tribunal;


 
Last updated: 28.11.2022 ^ top