Claim (18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Claim
Total judgments found: 144
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4838
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his claims for material and moral damages in connection with the death of his brother, a former staff member of IOM.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; complaint dismissed; death; successor;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In light of the foregoing, the complainant’s claim for compensation will be remitted to the IAEA for the JABCC to consider whether the complainant’s injury is attributable to the performance of official duties and whether he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses and compensation resulting from such injury pursuant to Appendix D.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; claim; compensation; illness; injury; remand; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
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:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that the Organization failed to order that she be reimbursed the amount of approximately 19,088 Swiss francs she had voluntarily repaid to the WTO on 13 March 2018 for the spouse allowance, the health insurance subsidy for 2015, and the home leave lump sums for 2016, pursuant to the finding of the OIO Report (some of which, she argues, she did not even lawfully owe). This claim seems inconsistent with the complainant’s former conduct, as she voluntarily offered to repay to the WTO the amounts which she had acknowledged were not owed to her. In any event, this is a new claim, submitted for the first time before the Tribunal, and it is, thus, irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted;
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 4796
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant seeks the award of “any other relief which the Tribunal considers just and equitable”, a claim worded in this way is, in any event, too vague to be regarded as receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4719, consideration 7, 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602, 4719
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Three of the decisions which the complainant challenges as unlawful and seeks to have set aside are general decisions. [...]
However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s claim for these decisions to be set aside is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue and the two decisions of 20 September 2019 – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In respect of the complainant’s submission in [...] his rejoinder that compliance by Eurocontrol with its obligations “should take the form of the assignment of the post [in question]”, it must be noted that this request is not one of the claims formally set out by the complainant in his submissions.
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant argues in his submissions, the delay of 23 months in reaching a decision on his internal complaint was clearly excessive and it was particularly unreasonable that the Director General did not take a decision until more than 10 months after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued its opinion. As the complainant has not submitted any claim for damages under this head, no specific order will be made. However, the Tribunal wishes to point out to Eurocontrol that such a delay, which it does not convincingly justify in its submissions, is unacceptable.
Keywords:
claim; delay in internal procedure; formal requirements;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant further requests that the Director General’s internal memorandum of 4 July 2019 be set aside, but that claim is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4719
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s claim [...] to be awarded such other relief as the Tribunal deems just, fair and equitable is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
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 16
Extract:
The range of procedural issues and other pleas raised by the complainant had no material effect on the outcome or are irrelevant. Accordingly, these other immaterial or irrelevant pleas need not be addressed (see Judgment 4487, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4487
Keywords:
claim;
Judgment 4555
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him the additional installation allowance in respect of his second child following his transfer to The Hague.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The EPO submits that the claim for “[a]ny other costs the Tribunal considers appropriate” is irreceivable for lack of basic clarity. This aspect of the claim for costs is dismissed as the complainant has not articulated any basis for such an award.
Keywords:
claim;
Judgment 4537
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 31 July 2018, being the date on which she reached her retirement age according to the Staff Rules then in force, as well as the decision not to approve an exceptional extension of his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is desirable […] to consider the question of whether a request for extension needs to be in writing. There is no express requirement in the Staff Rules to this effect and none, in particular, in the relevant provision, namely Staff Rule 1020.1.4. However, there is a procedure for requesting an exceptional extension of an appointment set out in Section III.10.8 of the WHO eManual at paragraph 20. It provides: “In all cases, requests for extensions must be submitted to the Director-General through the Director, HRD and requests will not be granted for more than one year at a time.” This does not say, expressly, that the request needs to be in writing. However, impliedly it does need to be in writing. The use of the word “submitted” is, in context, a clear pointer to this conclusion. Also, a procedure which requires a request to be made through the Director, HRD, almost certainly needs to be in writing. Virtually inevitably any such request, whether by the staff member concerned or a supervisor on the staff member’s behalf, would need to contain the reasons why the circumstances were exceptional and why it was in the interests of the Organization to grant the extension, in order to persuade the Director-General to do so. Plainly, the Director, HRD, is intended to be something more than a “letter box” to pass on requests to the Director-General. Implicit in this arrangement is that the Director, HRD, can provide some preliminary assessment or commentary to assist the Director-General in making the ultimate decision and, in particular, assessing whether the extension would be in the interests of the Organization. It is difficult to conceive of how this scheme could operate if the request could be made orally. It is highly unlikely that it is contemplated a request can be made orally, considered and then transmitted with the attendant risk that the Director, HRD, might misunderstand or misrepresent even innocently what was being put by the person making the request.
Keywords:
claim;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As regards the claim for the setting aside “more generally” of any other “decision of general application forming the basis” of the impugned decisions, the Tribunal considers that this claim has not been formulated in sufficient detail to allow the challenged decision (or decisions) to be identified.
Keywords:
claim; complaint;
Judgment 4273
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that these arguments, which do not appear to have been raised in the internal appeal proceedings, are, for the most part, set out in the section of the written submissions presenting the facts of the case. It is not therefore clear whether the complainants wish to raise them as pleas challenging the lawfulness of the general decision of the Council of CERN [...].
Keywords:
claim; complaint; legal brief;
Judgment 4243
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
WIPO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the grounds that it is directed against the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016 and not against the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016, which was the final decision. It is correct that in the complaint form the complainant only mentioned the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016, but in her written submissions she also seeks the setting aside of the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016.
The challenge to the receivability of the complaint therefore fails.
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; final decision; receivability of application;
Judgment 3918
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Considerations 3 & 4
Extract:
The relief [the complainant] seeks is:
“(a) The cancellation of his reassignment process as based on discrimination, non[-]application of guidelines and incomplete and biased review of the facts;
[...]
(c) His immediate rein[statement] to a position suited to his qualifications and experience until his retirement in 2017 [and the payment of all entitlements during that time];"
[...]
The first point to be made is that this judgment of the Tribunal is being given after the date on which the complainant would have retired from WHO. Accordingly, there would be no utility in making orders to the same effect of the proposed orders in (a) and (c) [...].
Keywords:
claim; reinstatement; retirement;
Judgment 3738
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The author of a complaint is of course free to decide what claims she or he wishes to file with the Tribunal. It is those claims – unless they are amended or counterclaims are filed – that determine the scope of the dispute. Where, as is the case here, they are clearly identified, their terms bind not only the other party but also the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 630, under 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 630
Keywords:
claim; complaint;
Judgment 3711
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the EPO not to treat his internal appeal as such.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; complaint dismissed; decision; summary procedure;
Judgment 3640
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s claims that the Tribunal should declare that “[his] complaint […] is receivable in all respects”, “that the impugned decision is unlawful because it is tainted with errors of fact and of law and with substantial formal and procedural flaws” and that “[his] summary dismissal for serious misconduct in fact constitutes wrongful dismissal callously imposed” shortly before the expiry of his employment contract and the end of his career, may be dismissed at the outset as irreceivable. Indeed, they can only be regarded as mere pleas in support of the complainant’s claims for the setting aside of the impugned decision and for damages. A long line of precedent has it that such claims seeking declarations in law are irreceivable where, as in this case, they have no legal effect per se (see, for example, Judgments 1546, under 3, 2299, under 5, or 3206, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2299, 3206
Keywords:
claim;
Judgment 3561
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal’s case law allows conditional claims, even when their exact amount is not specified."
Keywords:
claim;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
