|
|
 |
|
|
New plea (92,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New plea
Total judgments found: 38
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4705
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[U]nder [the Tribunal's] case law, the fact that a plea has not previously been submitted in the internal appeal procedure does not render it irreceivable.
Keywords:
new plea;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its case law which states that, while a complainant may not submit claims for the first time to the Tribunal if they were not made in the internal appeal procedure, she or he may enter new pleas (see Judgments 4009, under 10, and 4449, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009, 4449
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas (see, for example, Judgments 4009, considerations 10 and 14, and 4066, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009, 4066
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4449
133rd Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the complainant advances several new pleas that were not raised in the internal proceedings. According to the Tribunal’s case law, “a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas [...] before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body” (see, for example, Judgment 4009, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009
Keywords:
new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
That issue is not receivable as it was not raised in the internal appeal.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4280
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a retirement pension.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Despite having impugned the [...] decision, which exclusively addressed the issue of his request for the payment of a monthly retirement pension, the complainant devoted the majority of his complaint ostensibly to challenging his non-reinstatement. The Tribunal finds that these additional claims are also irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, as he did not challenge, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, any of the decisions not to reinstate him.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant makes it clear that she is not relying upon statements concerning harassment to assert that the decision to reassign her “was driven by the claimed harassment of [the DXD/MER] but rather that it occurred as a result of [the DXD/MER’s] malice, ill-will and prejudice against [her]” and that any statements brought into the present proceedings touching allegations of harassment are merely to support her plea that her reassignment was occasioned by these alleged improper motives on the part of the DXD/MER. She is not precluded from relying on statements touching on the alleged harassment to support her plea in these proceedings that she was reassigned as a result of the alleged improper motives (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The FAO raises receivability as a threshold issue submitting that the complainant did not raise in her internal appeal some of the issues which she raises in her complaint. However, the Tribunal finds that the FAO has not distinguished between new pleas, which the complainant may rely on to support her claims, and new claims, which would be irreceivable as they extend the scope of the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see Judgment 4009, under 10, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 10 &14
Extract:
As the defendant organisation notes, the complainant’s “request” to have his fixed-term contract redefined was not submitted to the Advisory Board. It is true that in his internal appeal the complainant asked only to have his fixed-term contract extended for one year. The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas, as the present complainant does, before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5). [...]
As stated in consideration 10, [..] the Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4002
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing as clearly irreceivable his grievance complaint against several members of the Staff Council.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In his complaint, the complainant maintains that he was subjected to harassment, retaliation, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power, defamation, and a violation of human rights. He submits that the Staff Council’s members unfounded allegations against him; barring him from performing his duty as a member of the Staff Council; and publishing of a defamatory document about him constitute improper conduct and created a hostile working environment. It must be observed that [...] the only grievances that have been subject to internal review are those of retaliation and defamation. It follows that the allegations of harassment, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power and violation of human rights are beyond the scope of this complaint and will not be considered. As to the allegations of retaliation and defamation, [...] the complainant does not dispute that the acts allegedly constituting retaliation and defamation were taken in the context of Staff Council activities.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the complainant did not put forward the claim for material damages mentioned in the foregoing consideration in his internal appeal, it is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It will be dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exhaust internal remedies in relation to that claim.
Likewise, the claim for the breach of the duty of care is also irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. It is outside the scope of the internal appeal as it was raised for the first time by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant did not claim in the internal appeal that his director, or by extension the EPO, breached the duty of care towards him. However, the majority of the IAC, having considered that the director’s actions did not constitute an offence to the complainant’s dignity amounting to harassment, concluded that the actions complained of amounted to a breach of the director’s duty of care towards the complainant. This finding clearly went beyond the scope of the internal appeal and was not addressed in the impugned decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3945
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
While a complainant can add to her or his pleas in a rejoinder (but not add additional claims: see, for example, Judgment 2965, consideration 11), she or he runs the risk, as illustrated by this case, that a detailed and persuasive answer by a defendant organisation emerges in the surrejoinder to which no response is provided by the complainant beyond what had earlier been said in the rejoinder.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2965
Keywords:
new plea; rejoinder;
Judgment 3688
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and to separate her from service.
Consideration 1
Extract:
WHO contends that [the complainant's] allegations of prejudice and bias, retaliation and malice in the present complaint are irreceivable. However, the Tribunal holds that those allegations are not claims, but pleas to support her argument that these were some of the factors which influenced the abolition of her post and separation (see, for example, Judgments 2837, consideration 3, and 3617, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3617
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3686
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he case law is clear that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas before the Tribunal even if those
pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see Judgment 2571, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3654
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain on his personal file a disputed performance appraisal report issued after the expiry of his temporary appointment, and the decision to reject his application for inclusion on a roster of candidates eligible for temporary contracts.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The FAO submits that [the complainant's claim] is irreceivable as it was raised for the first time in the present complaint. The Tribunal observes that this was not raised as an independent claim in the internal appeal, but that the complainant mentioned the fact that he received the PAR appraisal two months after the end of his appointment and referred to the applicable case law. To this extent it amounts to a plea to support his case, rather than a claim, and is accordingly receivable.
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3422
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In its surrejoinder, the Global Fund raises a plea that his claim for underpayment should have been, but was not, raised in the internal appeal. However, this plea should have been raised by the Global Fund in its reply. It was not and is not a plea to which the complainant has had an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, it is disregarded.
Keywords:
new plea; surrejoinder;
Judgment 3420
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgment 2837, under 3, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 3389
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application for review on the grounds that no new argument was raised by the complainant.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The grounds for the complainant’s application for review essentially repeat the arguments he submitted in his previous complaints, which were fully considered by the Tribunal prior to the taking of its decisions and the publication of its judgments [...]. No new argument has been raised. The application for review is therefore devoid of merit [...]."
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; new plea;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
