|
|
 |
|
|
Reply (169, 170, 171,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reply
Total judgments found: 43
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4476
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who claims to be entitled to whistleblower status and requests the protection afforded thereby, challenges the failure to respond to his letter reporting what he considers to be unlawful by particular Court officials.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that there is no reason to award the compensation which the complainant seeks in respect of the other information contained in the Court’s reply. Contrary to what the complainant contends, the information in question does not exceed the limits of the freedom enjoyed by the parties when drafting their submissions in a legal dispute.
Keywords:
moral injury; reply;
Judgment 4464
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s refusal to recognise the illness from which he states he suffers as service-incurred.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In his rejoinder, the complainant expressly requests the Tribunal to disregard paragraphs 2.2 to 2.6 and paragraph 2.8 of the reply, as well as annexes [...] thereto. He submits that these passages of the reply and these annexes, which concern the circumstances surrounding his separation from service, are irrelevant to the question which the Tribunal is required to decide in these proceedings.
Considering that it is primarily for the parties to determine whether or not the production of a document in support of its pleadings is relevant, the Tribunal finds that there is no reason to grant the complainant’s request in this case.
Keywords:
reply;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 31
Extract:
Because all these complaints concerning WIPO have been joined, the pleas in each proceeding can be treated as pleas in all the joined proceedings. That is relevant because it is in only one of the WIPO proceedings before joinder that the issue about to be discussed was raised. However what is important is whether WIPO has had the opportunity to answer the issue in a reply and surrejoinder. It has had that opportunity.
Keywords:
joinder; reply;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 30
Extract:
Because all these complaints concerning, either directly or indirectly, WHO have been joined, the pleas in each proceeding can be treated as pleas in all the joined proceedings. That is relevant because it is in only one of the WHO proceedings before joinder that the issue about to be discussed was raised. However what is important is whether WHO, on its own behalf directly, or indirectly on behalf of UNAIDS, has had the opportunity to answer the issue in a reply and surrejoinder. It has had that opportunity.
Keywords:
joinder; reply;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]n accordance with Article 8(2)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, a defendant organization before the Tribunal is only required to provide a translation into the language chosen for the proceedings by the complainant for “any text which is not in English or French”. Given that, in this case, the documents in question are drafted in English, UNESCO did not have to provide a French version thereof. In addition, the fact that excerpts from applicable texts and case law were cited in English in the defendant Organization’s submissions does not warrant these items being disregarded. It follows that this plea must be rejected.
Keywords:
reply;
Judgment 3942
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.
Consideration 6
Extract:
A defendant organisation in proceedings before the Tribunal should not ordinarily be permitted to maintain a factual and legal position which is diametrically opposite to the position earlier accepted to be the case and foundational to the impugned decision which the organisation is defending, unless it involves a concession, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, favourable to the complainant.
Keywords:
impugned decision; reply;
Judgment 3829
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that [the Organisation]’s defence is “audacious and vexatious”. On this basis, she asks that the Organisation be ordered to pay her damages [...]. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the Organisation’s pleadings do not exceed the boundaries of the freedom of expression that the parties must be accorded during legal proceedings.
Keywords:
reply;
Judgment 3828
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that [the Organisation]’s defence is “audacious and vexatious”. On this basis, she asks that the Organisation be ordered to pay her damages [...]. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the Organisation’s pleadings do not exceed the boundaries of the freedom of expression that the parties must be accorded during legal proceedings.
Keywords:
reply;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The resultant flaw in the internal appeal procedure [non-disclosure of evidence] was not remedied in any way by the fact that the Organization produced the report in question with its reply before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; evidence; reply;
Consideration 1
Extract:
In his rejoinder the complainant disputes the receivability of the Organization’s reply on the grounds that it mentions neither the name nor the function of “any representative of the defendant organisation”. This criticism is irrelevant. Although it is true that neither the reply nor the surrejoinder provides any indication of the identity or function of its author, WHO has explained that its submissions came from the Legal Counsel ad interim. This satisfies the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Rules
Keywords:
reply;
Judgment 3648
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s objection to the receivability of WIPO’s surrejoinder is unfounded. It should be noted that the date of filing of complaints and briefs with the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, in particular, Judgment 3566, under 3). In this case, the file contains a delivery receipt showing that the surrejoinder was deposited at the International Labour Office, where the Tribunal is based, on 9 February 2015. As the defendant organisation thus sent its surrejoinder on the date at the latest, that is, within the prescribed time limit, which ended that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566
Keywords:
reply; time bar;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal first observes that the complainant’s objection to the receivability of WIPO’s reply is unfounded. It should be noted that the date of filing of complaints and briefs with the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, in particular, Judgment 3566, under 3). In this case, the file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, where the Tribunal is based, on 24 June 2014. As the defendant organisation thus sent its reply on that date at the latest, that is, before the time limit expired that same evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566
Keywords:
reply; time limit;
Judgment 3424
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In his rejoinder, the complainant contests the receivability of the Fund’s reply, on the grounds that it was submitted by a person who did not have the requisite capacity. However, the Fund’s reply and surrejoinder are signed by a lawyer who is a member of the bar in Member States of international organisations that have recognized the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and who has produced a power of attorney duly issued by the Fund. He is consequently entitled, under Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Tribunal’s Rules, to represent the Fund in the present case."
Keywords:
counsel; power of attorney; reply;
Judgment 3423
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In their rejoinder, the complainants contest the receivability of the Fund’s reply, on the grounds that it was submitted by a person who did not have the requisite capacity. However, the Fund’s submissions are signed by a lawyer who is a member of the bar in Member States of international organisations that have recognized the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and who has produced a power of attorney duly issued by the Fund. He is consequently entitled, under Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Tribunal’s Rules, to represent the Fund in the present case.
Keywords:
power of attorney; reply;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In his rejoinder the complainant challenges the receivability of the EPO’s reply on the grounds that it has not been signed by a person with authority to do so. However, Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Rules of the Tribunal does not require a defendant organisation to provide a power of attorney where, as in this case, it is represented by one of its officials (see, for example, Judgment 2965, under 10). This objection will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2965
Keywords:
power of attorney; reply;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255
Keywords:
estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;
Judgment 2965
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
[T]he complainant challenges the receivability of the Organization’s reply [...]. He contends that [...] there is no indication that the Director-General had delegated his authority to its signatory and that the page bearing the signature is “dubious and illegal” because it has been numbered by hand. [...]
[...] With regard to the signing of the reply, the Tribunal draws attention to the fact that, under Article 5, paragraph 4, of its Rules, a defendant organisation is not obliged to provide a power of attorney when it is represented by a serving or former official.
Keywords:
power of attorney; reply;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
"Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
[T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; judicial review; language; misuse of authority; official; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; settlement out of court;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A] claim may be made and pursued against an organisation if its conduct in proceedings before an internal appeals body or this Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process or a perversion of the right of reply."
Keywords:
abuse of power; conduct; iloat; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; right;
Judgment 2598
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.
In view of the [...] circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.
The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.
The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
