|
|
 |
|
|
Rejoinder (168, 792,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Rejoinder
Total judgments found: 44
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4890
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that a rejoinder is not a proceeding by which the complainant is expected to reiterate, with a different wording, the same arguments that he developed in his complaint; it is rather a proceeding pursuant to which the complainant has an opportunity to answer any new argument raised in the reply and not already addressed in his complaint.
Keywords:
rejoinder;
Judgment 4823
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration.
Consideration 29
Extract:
The only time the complainant, and only indirectly, alluded to this “failure to abide by its obligation to actively contribute to an effort towards finding another position within ESO” was in his rejoinder. But this claim was never made or raised before by the complainant, and the latter could not add a new claim of this nature in the context or at the stage of his rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4761, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4761
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A] complainant cannot submit in the rejoinder a claim that was not contained in the complaint (see, for example, Judgments 4504, consideration 5, 4215, consideration 29, and 3086, consideration 3(d)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4215, 4504
Keywords:
claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In his rejoinder, the complainant asks for the case to be sent back to the Organization so that the internal complaints procedure for harassment can be initiated.
However, the Tribunal considers that this constitutes a new claim, which a complainant is not permitted to enter in her or his rejoinder (see, in particular, Judgments 4396, consideration 7, 4092, consideration 10, and 3086, consideration 3(d)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4092, 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for an “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the undue delay of the [Joint Appeals Board] process”. This claim is irreceivable since it is contained only in the complainant’s rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 7), whilst the complainant could, and should, have submitted it in her complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4665
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was reclassified retrospectively, claims compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered and requests that his resignation be redefined as a dismissal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers [...] that, as the Organization contends, the complainant raises new claims in his rejoinder which have not been made previously. According to the Tribunal’s case law, such claims are irreceivable (see, in particular, Judgments 4487, consideration 15, and 4396, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4487
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4659
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant seeks payment of the “termination indemnity”, that is to say the indemnity on termination of appointment provided for in Staff Rule 11.3.1. However, as the Organization correctly states, this claim was raised for the first time in the rejoinder and is thus irreceivable (see Judgments 4487, consideration 15, 4396, consideration 7, 4221, consideration 7, and 4092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092, 4221, 4396, 4487
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4487
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that the arrears owed to him in respect of his invalidity allowance, related benefits and unused leave following a retroactive modification of the monthly gross salary scales in December 2012 were not paid to him until January 2013.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Two claims (punitive damages and remitting the case to the German criminal prosecution authorities) were raised in the rejoinder. This is impermissible (see Judgments 4092, consideration 10, 4221, consideration 7, and 4396, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092, 4221, 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4457
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In its further submissions, UNESCO has requested that the Tribunal disregard the last paragraph of the complainant’s rejoinder, in which his representative discloses the content of exchanges between the parties made in the context of an attempt to settle the dispute amicably.
The complainant’s objection to the receivability of this request – in which he seeks to rely on the Tribunal’s case law set out, in particular, in Judgment 3648, consideration 5, according to which an organisation may not raise an objection to receivability in its surrejoinder where it could have done so in its reply – is unfounded. It is true that what was held with regard to the surrejoinder would likewise apply to such further submissions. However, the request in question cannot be regarded as an objection to receivability and is based, moreover, on new information provided by the complainant in his rejoinder. The request is therefore admissible, even though it would have been more natural for UNESCO to make it in the surrejoinder.
As it is, the request is justified. As the Tribunal has already stated, since the confidentiality of amicable dispute settlement procedures must be preserved to increase the likelihood of their success, information relating to any negotiations conducted by the parties with a view to resolving a dispute referred to the Tribunal must not be disclosed in the proceedings before it (see Judgment 3586, consideration 5).
The aforementioned paragraph of the rejoinder, which should indeed be disregarded, will not therefore be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3648
Keywords:
additional written submissions; amicable settlement; confidentiality; rejoinder;
Judgment 4396
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, in particular, Judgment 3086, under 3(d), as well as Judgment 4092, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4092
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in her or his complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, or 2996, consideration 6). In the present case, the complainant has, in her rejoinder, presented a claim for compensation for “financial loss”, which did not appear in the same form in her complaint. While the IOC misunderstands the implications of this rule, laid down in case law, when it argues in its surrejoinder that the irreceivability in question extends to any submission or allegation made for the first time in the rejoinder, this new claim will be dismissed at the outset for this reason.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4221
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4092
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4215
129th Session, 2020
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 29
Extract:
The Tribunal will not [...] grant the complainant’s claims for compensation for new heads of injury which were submitted for the first time in his rejoinder, since such claims are, for that very reason, irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2965, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2965
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4092
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant presents, for the first time in his rejoinder, various claims for compensation for injuries that he considers he has suffered as a result of WHO’s conduct. However, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2996, consideration 6). This case law also applies to applications for execution (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6). These new claims must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996, 3207
Keywords:
application for execution; new claim; rejoinder;
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 3725
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
UNIDO also notes that the complainant expanded the quantum of his claim for damages on his earlier claims and goes further in the rejoinder to introduce new claims of constructive dismissal. UNIDO submits that these are irreceivable and that the claims for damages should only be admitted to the extent of the earlier amounts which the complainant had sought.
The Tribunal has consistently stated that a new claim which is raised in a rejoinder is irreceivable.
Keywords:
damages; new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 3655
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that she was not promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant submitted a new claim in her rejoinder. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in her or his original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 1768, under 5, or Judgment 2996, under 6). This new claim must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768, 2996
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 3653
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant presented a new claim in his rejoinder [...]. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not in his or her rejoinder enter new claims not contained in his or her original submissions. Consequently, this new claim must in any case be dismissed (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3207
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 3642
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants address the question of receivability in their brief in a summary way but did not file a rejoinder dealing with the arguments of WIPO which are advanced in its reply.
Keywords:
rejoinder;
Judgment 3599
121st Session, 2016
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC, impugns the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his complaint of harassment and discrimination.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"One [...] issue concerns the complainant’s rejoinder and, indirectly, the ICC’s surrejoinder. As noted [...], the complaint was filed on 13 October 2012 though it was subsequently corrected. The corrected complaint was filed on 24 May 2013. The ICC sought an extension of time in which to file its reply. This was granted and allowed the ICC to file its reply by 9 September 2013. It did so on that day. The complainant then had until 7 January 2014 to file his rejoinder. It was not filed until 13 January 2014 even though no extension of time had been granted. In the result, Article 9(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules had the legal effect of closing the pleadings on 7 January 2014. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not have regard to either the complainant’s rejoinder or the ICC’s surrejoinder save to the extent that the surrejoinder points to the fact that Article 9(2) had been engaged with the legal effect just discussed. The legal effect of this provision has been acted upon by the Tribunal on earlier occasions (see Judgments 211, consideration 1, 871, consideration 1, and 1141, considerations 20 and 21). In this matter the pleas are, in any event, sufficiently complete having regard to the complainant’s complaint form and legal brief together with the ICC’s reply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 9 of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 211, 871, 1141
Keywords:
rejoinder; time bar;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
