Joinder (52, 53, 54,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Joinder
Total judgments found: 177
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4907
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for interpretation of Judgments 4568, 4569 and 4584.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The three [...] applications for interpretation concern related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; joinder;
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The five [...] applications for review are directed against judgments concerning related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for review; joinder;
Judgment 4905
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to set the rate of deterioration of physical health resulting from an occupational accident at only 15 per cent and, consequently, to award him the sum of 11,874.60 Swiss francs as an indemnity for deterioration of physical health.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The two complaints are closely linked since, as has just been stated, the fourth complaint is directed against the decision that rejected the internal appeal lodged against the decision which is the subject of the third complaint. It should also be noted that the complainant’s pleas in support of both complaints are identical in every respect.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complaints should be joined in order that a single judgment be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4900
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In view of the similarities and overlaps between the first and fourth complaints described above, in particular of the finding that they arose from the handling of the same harassment complaint, that the facts giving rise to the two decisions in question are closely intertwined, that the parties’ arguments overlap to a large extent and that, although there were two internal appeals, the JAAB issued a single report intending, at least in theory, to cover the consideration of both situations, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to join these two complaints in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization asks the Tribunal to order the joinder of these two complaints, on the grounds that the two internal appeals lodged by the complainant against the initial decisions [...] were joined by order of the Joint Appeals Committee, that the two complaints are “inseparably” linked and that joining them would allow savings to be made on the management costs that would be incurred if the Tribunal were to deal with the cases separately.
The complainant states that he is strongly opposed to this request for joinder, contending in particular that, “in advocating a joinder of cases before the Tribunal on economic grounds”, the Organization breaches its own rules concerning the joinder of internal appeals, causes delays to the appeal procedure and adversely affects the right of appeal, both administrative and contentious, by making the conditions for the exercise of that right more stringent.
The Tribunal recalls its case law, according to which, in principle, the touchstone for the joinder of complaints is that they involve the same or similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events (see Judgment 4753, consideration 6). Recently, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the cost of judgments is an irrelevant consideration in that regard (see Judgment 4822, consideration 4).
In the present case, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is a certain connection between the decision to suppress the complainant’s post [...] and the decision to terminate his appointment when it was not possible to reassign him thereafter. However, the decisions in question are different in nature, the legal context for each is, in part, individual, and the fundamental issues raised are different. It must also be noted that the two decisions are not entirely interdependent, since a measure taken to suppress a post could be followed by a reassignment decision, the outcome of which would be completely different from a termination of appointment. It is irrelevant in this respect that the Joint Appeals Committee, acting within its own prerogative, considered it appropriate to join the two internal appeals that had been referred to it.
For these reasons, the Tribunal will not order that the two complaints be joined in the light of the aforementioned case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753, 4822
Keywords:
financial considerations; joinder;
Judgment 4822
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organisation asked that the two complaints be joined because it considers that they rest on the same facts and originate from the same decision of 29 January 2020. But, while it is true that the facts in each of these complaints are part of a same continuum of events, the legal issues raised in each of them are different. The two complaints also do not pertain to the same impugned decision. The provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations involved are furthermore not the same, and the processes that led to the impugned decisions identified by the complainant were not the same either. Finally, the reasons developed by the parties, notably on the issues of receivability, are different from one complaint to the other.
Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. But, if necessary, the Tribunal will refer to the two judgments to avoid any potential overlapping.
In this regard, the Tribunal observes that one of the motivations for the request for joinder of the Organisation is pecuniary. In the proceedings it filed in the second complaint, ESO mentioned that a joinder “would absolve [the Organisation] from having to pay twice the Tribunal’s substantial court expenses irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.
The starting point in dealing with this issue is whether the cost to the organisation is a relevant consideration in determining whether there should be joinder. The principles applied by the Tribunal on the general issue of joinder have developed over a period of more than 45 years. As discussed in Judgment 4753, consideration 3:
“Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.”
And later in consideration 6:
“The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. [...]”
The cost to the organisation of multiple judgments has no part to play in the exercise of the discretionary power concerning joinder. It is an irrelevant consideration.
Additionally, while ESO pleads that having only one judgment would protect the Organisation “against the cost[s] and administrative demands of unnecessary litigation issues”, the Tribunal cannot ignore that ESO itself acknowledged that “it is the law of its Staff Rules and Regulations which provide that different procedures apply for challenging the Director General’s decisions not to grant [the] complainant an indefinite contract and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond the one year granted”. In other words, there are two different and separate complaints filed not because of unnecessary litigation issues raised by the complainant, but because of the way the Staff Rules and Regulations of ESO are organized.
That said, the Tribunal notes, however, that, while arguing that the submission of two complaints was not chosen by him since he had no other alternative than to follow the procedural paths imposed by the Organisation, the complainant still disputes the assertion of ESO that it should not “be punished twice for the same conduct”. As a result, he maintained the separate claims for relief sought in both complaints even though there was clearly some overlapping between the two. Conceding there was indeed some overlapping here would have been the expected and logical position to adopt on the part of the complainant. It is regrettable to see that he did not do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
financial considerations; joinder;
Judgment 4778
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was promoted from grade G.6 to grade P.3, challenges what he regards as the withdrawal of the decision to take his family allowance into account when determining his step in his new grade P.3.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[The organisation] asked for the present complaint to be joined to the complainant’s second complaint, which gave rise to Judgment 4777, also delivered in public this day. It is true that the factual contexts behind the two complaints converge in many respects and that, as set out below, the object of each one is redundant. However, given that the complaints involve different impugned decisions, different opinions of the Appeal Board, and provisions of the Staff Rules that are not entirely the same, and that they are based on arguments that differ in content, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to deal with the two cases separately and to render a separate judgment for each of them.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. A recent example is Judgment 4600, consideration 2. In that case, no joinder was ordered, notwithstanding that the complaints, the joinder of which was sought, concerned the same continuum of events. If the complaints concern the same or similar questions of fact and law, then it is probable that the same or related orders will be made dispositive of the several complaints.
In the present case, notwithstanding the linkage discussed earlier, the ultimate legal issues are quite different. At base, the first complaint requires a consideration of the legality of placing the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file. Any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. At base, the second complaint addresses a different issue, namely the lawfulness of the decision to close the complainant’s harassment complaint, and again, any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. Therefore, the two complaints will not be joined to form the subject of a single judgment, though they will be considered at the same session by the same panel of judges.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4600
Keywords:
identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; flaw; identical facts; investigation; joinder; personal file;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal; order;
Judgment 4718
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he joinder of a complaint with pending internal appeals is not possible.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4710
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administrative Council decision CA/D 10/14 to modify the career system.
Consideration 1
Extract:
In the three cases, the complainant is, in substance, challenging the introduction of the new career system based on decision CA/D 10/14. The Tribunal has a principle that “the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties” (see Judgments 4530, consideration 7, and 3058, consideration 3). It is conceivable that one or more of the complaints could have been dismissed by application of that principle. However, the broad subject matter of each of the complaints is plainly a matter of fundamental importance to the staff of the EPO, including the complainant. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will address each of the complaints individually.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3058, 4530
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings; joinder;
Judgment 4707
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Three complaints have been filed with the Tribunal commencing proceedings against […] CERN. […] Each retained the same lawyer and both the factual circumstances and the legal issues of each are substantially the same. Accordingly, the complaints are joined so that one judgment can be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant also asks that this complaint be joined to his fourth complaint in which he seeks the setting aside of the decision concluding that some of his absences were unjustified, since he considers that the two complaints rest on the same facts. The Organisation opposes this. Given that the two complaints involve different impugned decisions, different opinions of the Joint Committee for Disputes, and provisions of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency which are not entirely the same, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to deal with the two cases separately and to render a separate judgment for each of them. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The eleven complaints essentially seek the same redress, rest on broadly similar submissions and, for the most part, raise the same legal issues. They will therefore be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4632
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejections of his requests for decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant seeks the joinder of these two complaints filed on 5 May 2017 and on 19 May 2017 respectively and this is not opposed by the EPO. Accordingly, the two complaints are joined so that one judgment can be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4600
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illness be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant requests the joinder of this complaint and her third complaint in order that one judgment could be rendered. Citing consideration 2 of Judgment 4265, WHO argues that the Tribunal should reject the request because the issues of law to be decided and facts to be considered are substantially different. In the cited judgment, the Tribunal refrained from joining the underlying complaint with five other complaints the complainant had filed. This was on the basis that whilst the six complaints were broadly related to the same continuum of events (as are the present complaint and the complainant’s third complaint), it was not appropriate to join them consistent with the Tribunal’s case law that, ordinarily, the touchstone for the joinder of complaints is that they involve the same or similar questions of fact and law. For similar reasons, it is not appropriate to join this and the complainant’s third complaints. The request for their joinder is accordingly rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4265
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organization sought the joinder of this complaint with another complaint filed on the same day by another translator. However, as each concerns the non-renewal of fixed-term appointments of individual employees, it is appropriate to address each complaint separately. This is so, even though there is a considerable overlap of the analysis in each judgment. The request for joinder is therefore rejected.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complaints, for which the same submissions were filed, seek the same redress and are based on the same arguments. They may therefore be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4563
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.
Consideration 1
Extract:
As the two complaints are based on the same material facts and raise the same issues of fact and law, they may be dealt with in one judgment and are therefore joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4527
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn WHO’s decision to postpone implementation of the mandatory age of separation adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 70/244 of 23 December 2015.
Consideration 1
Extract:
On 16 April 2019 fifteen complaints were filed with the Tribunal, each by a former official of WHO. Each complaint form was in the same terms save in relation to the personal details of each complainant and the precise relief sought. Each complaint impugned a decision of 18 January 2019 and there was only one brief accompanying all 15 complaints. The genesis of the aggregation of these claims was a decision of the GBA to join the appeals of the complainants in the internal appeal process. In the Tribunal, each complainant seeks substantially the same relief though the different personal circumstances of each are reflected in the precise orders sought. Only one reply was filed by WHO and there was also only one rejoinder and one surrejoinder. In these circumstances, the complaints are joined in order that a single judgment can be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4489
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of moral damages paid to her by the EPO for the decision not to finalise her two performance management reports for 2011 and part of 2012.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks the joinder of this, her eighth complaint, with an earlier complaint, her seventh, and a later complaint, her ninth. This procedural course is opposed by the EPO. While the facts in each of these complaints are part of the same continuum of events, the legal issues raised are quite discrete. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. That is not to say that the Tribunal cannot have recourse to the judgments given in the other complaints.
Keywords:
joinder;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
