Complaint (3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Complaint
Total judgments found: 302
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 804
61st Session, 1987
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
At the date on which the complaint was filed, the organisation "had not yet taken any challengeable decision, there was no more than a recommendation by the Appeal Board [...] But the complainant put the mistake right not only within the time limit for filing the complaint but also within the one for correcting it which the registrar set [...] In the interests of fair process the correction will be allowed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; correction of complaint; date; internal remedies exhausted; late decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 775
60th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"If an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 764
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A decision by an international organisation is challengeable before the Tribunal only if it causes the complainant injury. One that has no effect on his position is not, for example an act which is not operative but a mere declaration of intent."
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; injury; lack of injury; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint; statement of intent;
Judgment 762
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Before the Tribunal will join two or more complaints, two conditions must be fulfilled. the first is that the substance of the claims must be the same, whatever their wording. The second is that the material facts, viz. those on which the claims rest, should be the same. [...] It is immaterial that the complainants advance more or less different pleas since the content of the pleas lays no constraint on the Tribunal's ruling."
Keywords:
application of law ex officio; complaint; condition; definition; identical claims; joinder;
Judgment 732
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"This complaint is not about execution as such but about the allegedly harmful consequences of the way in which the FAO executed Judgment 620. That is not a matter that is ordinarily connected with execution and it is therefore one that must go through the internal appeal procedure before it can come to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 297, 620
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint; consequence; execution of judgment; injury; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 730
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case the Tribunal, having found that in all the circumstances the complainant exercised due diligence in the pursuit of his remedies and consequently that his failure to file a complaint within the prescribed period was caused solely by the organization's breach of obligation to render the necessary assistance, concludes that the delay does not render the complaint irreceivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; exception; negligence; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"The questions of law are: 1) whether there was any obligation on the organization to assist the complainant in the prosecution of his appeal; 2) if so, whether there was a breach of that obligation. [...] The Tribunal holds that in the circumstances of this case there was an obligation forming part of the general duty which an employer owes to an employee. In many cases, for example, in a large office where there is a staff association given facilities by the organisation, the administration can properly feel that it need do nothing more. But in a small office remote from headquarters it is different."
Keywords:
complaint; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 727
58th Session, 1986
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is mistaken in his contention that the filing of a suit with the municipal courts can have any effect on the receivability of a complaint lodged with the Tribunal. Suing Eurocontrol before the Sittard court did not have the effect of suspending the time limit for filing this complaint."
Keywords:
complaint; effect; inquiry; investigation; municipal court; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 723
58th Session, 1986
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal applies the general rule on the burden of proof which requires the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. as the organization has no evidence of the actual date of receipt of the decision, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the complainant. The complaint is therefore not time-barred.
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 698
57th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is immaterial that there was correspondence after the decision of 24 May. insofar as that correspondence related to the issues decided on 24 May it merely confirmed the decision and set off no new time limit for lodging an internal appeal."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 630
54th Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the unfair treatment lies in her being kept idle for so long. Accordingly the time limit for filing an appeal did not begin on the date on which her supervisor decided, while keeping her on her post, to give her no more work: the injury occurred only with the passage of time. Thus, although it was only after being kept idle for a considerable lapse of time that the complainant appealed to the Director-General, and then to the Tribunal, for compensation for the injury she alleged, her claims are not time-barred and her complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
compensation; complaint; date; executive head; iloat; injury; internal appeal; period; post; receivability of the complaint; refusal to assign work; request by a party; start of time limit; supervisor; time bar;
Judgment 597
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The internal appeal makes no mention of the problem referred to in the claim in question. "The Appeals Committee did not rule on the point, which was not before it. The plea of irreceivability succeeds under Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 587
51st Session, 1983
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is quite plain that the proper procedure was not followed. The Director-General's failure to reply within a month of receiving the protest implied rejection of it, but instead of appealing to the Board the complainant, directly and without the Director-General's agreement, appealed to the Tribunal. [...] This obvious disregard of his obligation to exhaust the internal means of redress provided in the Statutes [...] makes the complaint irreceivable by virtue of Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 586
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
"The question is [...] whether the claim which was rejected [...] had not only the same purpose - reinstatement - but also the same legal basis as the one rejected by the impugned decision". The examination "leaves no doubt that the impugned decision, though not in the same terms [...] had the same meaning and purport: it merely confirmed" the organisation's view. "It is therefore plain that the impugned decision was no more than confirmation and gave rise to no new time limit."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 550
50th Session, 1983
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"In her rejoinder the complainant asks the Tribunal to hear this complaint together with another she has filed but in which the written proceedings are not completed. Thus she would like the Tribunal to postpone the hearing of this case." She subsequently suggests joining the two complaints with another yet to be filed. The Tribunal "will deliver a separate judgment on the present case, which raises distinct and quite separate issues, and it reserves its decision on the joinder of subsequent complaints."
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; joinder; refusal; request by a party; tribunal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The internal appeal was declared irreceivable. "But a decision declaring an appeal irreceivable is just as open to challenge as a decision on the merits. And the receivability of this complaint does not turn on that of the internal appeal, and on such questions as whether the latter was submitted in time or duly brought within the scope of Staff Rules [...] The point must be settled solely by reference to the Tribunal's own Statute."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; enforcement; iloat statute; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 544
50th Session, 1983
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was notified to him more than ninety days before the date on which he filed the complaint. "However [...] he made a request [...] for the institution of disciplinary proceedings to dispel the suspicion which he believed he was under; and [...] he [subsequently] appealed to the Director-General against the failure to convince the Disciplinary Board. His ultimate purpose [...] was to have the decision of non-renewal set aside; in other words to challenge it." It would be unduly formalistic to make the time limit run from the date of the decision not to renew his appointment was notified.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; disciplinary procedure; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 528
49th Session, 1982
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although the complainant took over eleven years to file a claim, it will not be declared time-barred in the absence of an express time limit. The time bar extinguishes obligations, and its existence will not be presumed: it must be expressly prescribed. [...] The sole consequence of the delay in lodging the claim is that proof is more difficult; but the matter is one of fact, not of law."
Keywords:
complaint; illness; invalidity; no provision; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 517
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision impugned was notified to the complainant on 25 May, and the ninety days accordingly expired on 23 August. Since 23 August was a sunday, the complaint, which was not filed until 24 August, is receivable.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; date of notification; decision; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 496
48th Session, 1982
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"The organization contends that the appeal was irreceivable by the [Appeal] Board and is therefore irreceivable by the Tribunal. [...] The complaint had been dismissed by the Tribunal under Judgment No. 408 [...] [this] ground fails. The appeal was dismissed as irreceivable. Such a dismissal constitutes no barrier to a second presentation if the objection of irreceivability can be overcome."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 408
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 493
48th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The organisation's argument is that the time limit for filing the complaint started on [the date] the complainant's contract was extended [...]. The argument would succeed only if the later decisions [...] had merely confirmed the [extension] decision. But they did not. The extension of the contract [on the mentioned date] for three months did not necessarily mean that there would be no further extension."
Keywords:
complaint; contract; date; date of notification; decision; extension of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 478
47th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant's first claim was rejected. In his reply to the second, which was based on the same cause of action as the first, "the Director, who had carried out no further inquiry, merely confirmed his earlier position. The [second] decision [...] was therefore purely confirmatory in character and did not give rise to any new time limit." As the time limit was not extended, the appeal is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
