|
|
 |
|
|
Correction of complaint (109, 738, 769,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Correction of complaint
Total judgments found: 22
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 3891
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn the final decision of the EPO Administrative Council rejecting their requests for review of the Council’s decision CA/D 10/14.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; summary procedure; time bar;
Considerations 3 and 4
Extract:
The complaints were filed within the time frame set forth by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, but required some correction. The Registrar called upon the complainants to correct them within a period of time set in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules. However, the complainants missed the deadline for corrections and filed their submissions late without any explanation. They did not avail themselves of the possibility of requesting an extension of the time limit for the corrections.
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3556, under 7, “[u]nless the complaint is corrected (that is, rendered conformable with the Rules) within the extended period [...] notified by the Registrar, then it remains deficient”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute ; Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3556
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3716
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s rejection of his challenge to a decision of the Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the complainant has not [...] corrected his complaint as required by [...] Article 6, paragraph 2, [of the Tribunal's Rules], it is clearly irreceivable [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3710
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his six complaints, the complainant seeks to impugn the decisions to reject his internal appeals.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Given that none of the corrections requested [by the Registrar] were made by the complainant within the stipulated time limits, as required by [...] Article 6 [paragraph 2 of the Tribunal's Rules], the present six complaints are clearly irreceivable [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; joinder; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3632
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the application of two decisions of the Administrative Council.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Since the complainant has not [...] corrected his complaint [...], it is clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed under the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Keywords:
correction of complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 3556
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is out of time, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The legal effect of a request by the Registrar under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules is to extend the period in which a complainant can correct a complaint (which is only a complaint in form but not in substance) that, though filed in time, did not comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and, in particular, Article 6(1). Unless the complaint is corrected (that is, rendered conformable with the Rules) within the extended period or any further extended period notified by the Registrar, then it remains deficient. The unremedied deficiency existing at the time of filing means that the complaint form filed was not a complaint for the purposes of Article 6 of the Rules. The legal consequence of this is that the complaint form was not a complaint at the time of filing, for the purposes of Article VII(2) of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Thus, it is obvious that the complaint is out of time. It has not been filed within the time limits provided for in the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules. It is therefore clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules."
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3499
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the rejection of their appeal against the creation of the Ethics Office and the decision to transfer another staff member to the position of Chief Ethics Officer.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"WIPO [...] challenges the receivability of the entire complaints on the basis that while the complaint forms were filed within the 90-day time limit prescribed by Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the brief setting out the grounds, relief and argument was not filed within the specified time and it was not permissible to allow the complainants the opportunity to “correct” the complaints by filing documentation (effectively the brief) well after the 90-day time limit had expired. This argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Tribunal and is rejected in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 3419, under 1, 3421, under 2, and 3425, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 3421, 3425
Keywords:
correction of complaint;
Judgment 3425
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After his contract was terminated, the complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his appeal, for lack of formal notification.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power enabling the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Global Fund argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2), additionally by Article 14 of the Rules, in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, under 1 and 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500
Keywords:
correction of complaint;
Judgment 3421
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his application in a selection process.
Consideration 2(a)
Extract:
The complaint form was filed within the time limit prescribed by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to WIPO’s submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since Article 6, paragraph 2, in conjunction with Article 14, if appropriate, affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected [...] within the time limit allocated for that purpose (see also Judgment 3225, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3225
Keywords:
correction of complaint;
Judgment 3418
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Before addressing the issues raised by the complainant in her brief, it is necessary to address a challenge by WIPO to the receivability of the complaint. [...] WIPO contends that the complaint is not receivable. It does so on a basis that is raised in other cases in this session and which has been raised in the past. The Tribunal’s response to the argument has been consistent. While the completed complaint form was filed on 13 April 2012, the brief was not filed until 17 July 2012. This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power to enable the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules. Article 14 of the Rules also appears to have been engaged. WIPO argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However, the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2) in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, considerations 1 and 2). Whether it is desirable for a Registrar to routinely use the power in this way is another question. WIPO’s challenge to receivability is rejected."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500
Keywords:
correction of complaint; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"WIPO [...] contends that the complainant’s original submission consisted of a complaint form without an accompanying brief in contravention of Article 6(1)(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules. This position is rejected. In Judgment 3299, under 1, the Tribunal stated:
“The Organization has raised irreceivability as a threshold issue on the ground that when the complaint was filed on 20 April 2011, it was filed without the supporting brief which Article 6(1) of the Rules of the Tribunal requires. The Tribunal has consistently held that a complaint would not thereby be rendered irreceivable because Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal permits a complaint to be corrected within the time signified by the Registrar (see, for example, Judgment 3225, under 5). The Tribunal has stated that the Rules provide this facility to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict procedures of the Statute and the Rules with which they are not necessarily familiar (see, for example, Judgment 2439, under 4). Article 6(2) directs the Registrar of the Tribunal to call upon the complainant or her or his agent to meet the requirements for correction within 30 days.”
In the present case, the Registrar asked the complainant to correct her complaint form within thirty days by submitting her brief and supporting documents. Before that time had expired, the complainant requested and was granted an extension of time within which she filed the required materials."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2439, 3225, 3299
Keywords:
correction of complaint;
Judgment 3225
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaint form was filed within the time limit specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to [the defendant]’s submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected on 30 March 2011, within the time limit set by the Registrar of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; date; formal requirements; iloat statute; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 3116
113th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
"It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainant’s requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2439
99th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1611
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It was open to the complainant to withdraw the obviously premature complaint [...] and lodge a new one which complied with the time limit in Article VII(3) [of the Tribunal's Statute]. What his counsel supplied [...] was no new complaint but merely a version of the original one corrected in compliance with the Registrar's instructions. So for the purpose of a ruling on his observance of the time limit his complaint is still the [the original one]." The claim in that complaint being therefore premature, it is for that reason irreceivable too.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; correction of complaint; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1609
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Although the complainants "corrected their second complaints more than ninety days after getting notice of the decisions, they did not act out of time on that account. They filed in time with the Tribunal complaint forms identifying the decisions they were impugning; their counsel duly applied for extensions of the time limit for correction; and those extensions were duly granted under Article 14 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 14 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date of notification; decision; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"That he set out his pleas in a brief entered several months [after filing his complaint] after due extension of the time limit granted for the purpose, has no bearing on receivability. As was held in Judgment 1305 [...] under 16 - to which the Tribunal draws the organization's attention - the Registrar may as such take any action he sees fit to safeguard due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1305
Keywords:
case law; complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; new time limit; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant filed within the time limit in the Statute the complaint form provided for in the Schedule to the Rules. The entries sufficed to identify the decision he was impugning and the relief he was claiming. The registering of the complaint and the correcting of it within the time limit were in line with the Rules. Since the complaint was lodged in time the Organization's objection to receivability fails."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; correction of complaint; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1305
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
In the light of article 7(4) [*] of the Rules on the procedure for correcting a complaint, the Tribunal holds that "since those who fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction live far and wide and are free to plead their own case, it is the Registrar's particular duty to see that complaints filed with the Tribunal are correctly presented and to offer a complainant such comment or advice as he thinks proper for the correction of the papers."
*since 1 May 1994, Article 6(2) of the Tribunal's Rules
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7(4) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
