|
|
 |
|
|
Vexatious complaint (118, 662,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Vexatious complaint
Total judgments found: 33
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Consideration 9
Extract:
With regard to the [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs, the Tribunal considers that, although the complaint was obviously misconceived and the language used by the complainant in her submissions to the Tribunal is highly inappropriate, the [organisation] has not sufficiently established that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous (see, for example, Judgments 4726, consideration 14, and 3672, consideration 6). The [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3672, 4726
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; frivolous complaint; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 17
Extract:
Both proceedings could have been discontinued after the complainant became aware of his success and the reasons for it in his third complaint founding Judgment 3908. The complainant ought to have appreciated that a right to bring proceedings in the Tribunal is not a license to litigate on any topic raising any conceivable argument and to do so repeatedly. It unreasonably taxes the resources of the defendant organization and also the resources of the Tribunal. It is tantamount to an abuse of process that needs to be deprecated in the strongest terms.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
Keywords:
abuse of process; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 4025
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting her request for payment of interest on the lump sum paid to her in respect of her separation entitlements.
Considerations 6 and 9-12
Extract:
The IAEA submits that the complaint is vexatious and constitutes an abuse of process. It requests that the Tribunal order the complainant to pay the costs of the proceedings including all filing fees. [...]
At this juncture, it is observed that bad faith cannot be automatically inferred solely on the basis of the filing of a large number of complaints by a litigant. This is well illustrated by a review of the twelve complaints referenced by the IAEA, one of which is the present complaint. The complainant was successful in six complaints and was awarded damages and costs; four complaints were dismissed; and one was withdrawn.
In Judgment 3568, under 5, the Tribunal framed relevant considerations in the awarding of costs against a complainant in the following terms:
“The Tribunal may indeed award costs against the authors of frivolous, vexatious and repeated complaints which absorb its resources and those of the defendant organisations and hamper the Tribunal’s ability to deal expeditiously with other complaints. Any such award must, however, remain exceptional, since it is essential that international civil servants’ access to an independent and impartial judicial body is not impeded by the prospect of an adverse award of costs if their complaint were to prove unfounded (see Judgments 1962, under 4, and 3196, under 7).”
A review of the complainant’s pleadings alone reflects a case that obviously had no possibility of success and is clearly frivolous. The complainant did not advance any positions that were arguable and relied on cases that are plainly distinguishable on the facts and a judgment that was overturned in relevant part on appeal.
Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed and the counterclaim for costs will be allowed. As this is the first occasion in the series of complaints against the IAEA in which the Tribunal will make an award of costs against this complainant, the amount will be nominal. The complainant will be ordered to pay the IAEA 100 euros in costs within sixty days of the date of the public delivery of this judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962, 3196, 3568
Keywords:
counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal shall not order the complainant to pay costs because, notwithstanding the fact that he has filed multiple complaints with duplicate requests, the present complaint cannot be regarded as vexatious by reason of its irreceivability.
Keywords:
counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3815
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The [Organisation] submits that the application is clearly vexatious.
The Tribunal shares that opinion, but since the defendant has not submitted a counterclaim for an order against the complainant on this basis, it cannot issue an order to that effect in this judgment.
Keywords:
counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3456
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints, essentially identical and clearly irreceivable, were summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; vexatious complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"On the guidance of Judgments 3301, under 5, and 2479, under 2, for example, the Tribunal considers that these complaints constitute an abuse of process for the following reasons. First, they are essentially identical complaints. In the second place, they are clearly irreceivable on a number of grounds. The first is that the complaints do not impugn final decisions, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302 and 3326). Moreover, the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body, constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see Judgment 2948, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2479, 2948, 3050, 3301, 3302, 3326
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3301
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant through five irreceivable complaints requested information concerning facts that occurred before his retirement for disability.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the five complaints constitute an abuse of process for three reasons. The first being that the five complaints were essentially identical, the second being that they were clearly irreceivable and the third being that they contained unacceptable, offensive and unjustified expressions against the Organisation as a whole. This would justify the award of costs to the Organisation. However, in the circumstances, considering that the case is dealt with in accordance with the summary procedure, the Tribunal will not award costs.
Keywords:
no award of costs; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3196
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implicit rejection of her request for disclosure of a medical report.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the complaint must be dismissed, the Tribunal will not entertain the Organization’s counterclaim to sanction the complainant for abuse of process. Indeed, whilst her unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent manipulation and misrepresentation are inappropriate, they do not prove bad faith in and of themselves, and as such do not constitute an exceptional circumstance meriting the imposition of costs on the complainant (see Judgment 1962, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1962
Keywords:
condition; costs; counterclaim; exception; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 3135
113th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The CTA has asked that the complainant should be ordered to pay its costs on the basis that “the complaint is unfounded”. Without ruling out, as a matter of principle, the possibility of making such an order against a complainant (see, inter alia, Judgments 1884, 1962, 2211 and 3043), the Tribunal will avail itself of that possibility only in exceptional circumstances. Indeed, it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive or chilling effect of possible adverse awards of that kind. In the instant case, although the complaint must be dismissed, it should not be regarded as vexatious. The Centre’s counterclaims will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884, 1962, 2211, 3043
Keywords:
costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The ITU argues that the [...] complaint with respect to the complainant's dismissal is [...] irreceivable on the basis that, as he has not pursued his internal appeal following his request [...] for a final review of the decision to dismiss him [...]. [T]he question remains whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules permit an internal appeal once a person has ceased to be a staff member. If they do not, the steps taken by the complainant to initiate an internal appeal were ineffective. More to the point, there were no internal remedies that he could pursue before lodging his complaint."
"Chapter XI of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules makes provision for appeals by staff members. [...] There is nothing in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to indicate that a former staff member may lodge an appeal as therein provided. [...] In these circumstances, the term "staff member" in Chapter XI is to be construed as restricted to a serving staff member."
"In Judgment 2840, also a case where the relevant regulations and rules relating to internal appeals referred only to a "staff member" and not a "former staff member", it was held that "where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process". The same is true of a staff member who has either been summarily dismissed or dismissed with such short notice that it is impracticable to commence internal appeal proceedings before the dismissal takes effect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582, 2840
Keywords:
definition; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; official; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2211
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Having made reference to what it declared in Judgment 1884, under 8 and 9, the Tribunal states: "The Tribunal will not, of course, impose costs penalties in every case in which a persistent litigant [...] loses, for some disputes will no doubt be at least arguable. But where, as in the present case, a complainant has actually had success before the Tribunal [...] and nonetheless refuses to accept the limitations which such success imposes, that complainant may expect to have cost consequences. Because this is the first time the Tribunal has had to act against the present complainant, the costs awarded to the organisation will be relatively nominal, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. The Tribunal will order the complainant to pay the [organisation] the sum of 100 euros in costs. The [organisation] may recover the award by withholding it from any amounts due to the complainant now or in the future."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884
Keywords:
case law; complaint; costs; counterclaim; res judicata; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1962
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that it has the inherent power to impose costs on a complainant. But it specifies that it will only exercise this power in exceptional circumstances. "In the present case, it is clear that a full withdrawal of suit would have been desirable once Judgment 1864 had upheld the rules [at issue]. However, neither the fact that the complainant filed his complaint later than his colleagues, nor his failure to reply to the invitation made by the legal services to withdraw suit in the week following [...] can be considered as constituting abuse. The Tribunal finds that in the circumstances, this is not one of the exceptional cases in which it could penalise the filing or maintenance of a complaint as being abusive. It therefore dismisses the EPO's counterclaims."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1864
Keywords:
condition; costs; counterclaim; exception; vexatious complaint; withdrawal of suit;
Judgment 1932
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal would emphasise that it will not tolerate the waste of time and money caused by the pursuit of abusive and unnecessary procedures before it and will take towards those responsible any appropriate action, including awards of costs, if requested to do so."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1884
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"The Tribunal has never heretofore imposed a costs penalty upon a complainant. However, it asserts unequivocally that it possesses the inherent power to do so as part of the necessary power to control its own process. Clearly, such power must be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most exceptional situations since it is essential that the Tribunal should be open and accessible to international civil servants without the dissuasive and chilling effect of possible adverse awards of costs. [T]he Tribunal [...] declares that in future it will award costs against complainants in appropriate cases if they are sought."
Keywords:
complaint; costs; counterclaim; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1847
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The question of both legal and translation costs is entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal. Where a valid, sufficient and binding offer to settle is made by a defendant in the course of proceedings, and the complainant continues with the complaint in the face of such an offer, the Tribunal may well deny costs. The Tribunal also notes that in the present case the complainant filed her internal appeal almost immediately and without apparently requesting information from the defendant or from [the insurance company] as to the progress of her claim: she appears to be more interested in litigation than in dealing in good faith with her employer. Parties and their legal advisers should be encouraged to settle their claims and dissuaded from time-wasting disputation."
Keywords:
case pending; costs; good faith; no award of costs; settlement out of court; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1533
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Both the want of evidence to support the complainant's allegations and the absurdity of his claims show his complaint to be trifling and an abuse of process."
Keywords:
vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1443
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The organisation asks the Tribunal to declare his complaint to be an obvious abuse of the right to appeal, though it does not make any formal counterclaim. The EPO is mistaken. All that the complainant did was exercise his right to appeal; [the rule under challenge was] so vague as to prompt many internal appeals, and, however they fared, they were quite understandable."
Keywords:
counterclaim; criteria; right of appeal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1431
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The EPO described [the complainant's] complaint as "an abuse". But it does not ask the Tribunal to dismiss it as irreceivable for that reason. "The defendant is merely exercising the freedom of speech that any litigant must be allowed, short of resorting to offensive or insulting language." the complainant's claim to damages on that account fails.
Keywords:
criteria; freedom of speech; limits; new claim; organisation; rejoinder; reply; submissions; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1423
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"By his pointless repetition of arguments on claims which the Tribunal has rejected in previous complaints, the complainant has refused to accept that the decisions of the Tribunal are res judicata. His conduct in reverting to issues which the Tribunal has already ruled on amounts to an abuse of process."
Keywords:
identical claims; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties; same purpose; vexatious complaint;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
