Frivolous complaint (662,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Frivolous complaint
Total judgments found: 2

• Judgment 4780

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  With regard to the [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs, the Tribunal considers that, although the complaint was obviously misconceived and the language used by the complainant in her submissions to the Tribunal is highly inappropriate, the [organisation] has not sufficiently established that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous (see, for example, Judgments 4726, consideration 14, and 3672, consideration 6). The [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs will be dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3672, 4726
  

  Keywords:

  costs; counterclaim; frivolous complaint; vexatious complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3414

  
  119th Session, 2015
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The IAEA argues that the complaint is frivolous and should, for that reason, be dismissed at the outset. It cites two authorities in support of this approach. One is Judgment 2730 where, at consideration 4, the Tribunal held that it did “not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious”. However in that matter the Tribunal, while very critical of the way the complainant articulated his case in the pleas, did not proceed to characterise the entire complaint as frivolous, wrongful or vexatious nor did it refrain from considering the merits of the complaint entirely. It did consider an aspect of the case and rejected it on its merits. The other authority is a decision of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) in Judgment 497. However, as UNAT noted in its reasons, the Statute governing that Tribunal provided for the declaration that an application is frivolous and noted that created a proper mechanism for preventing abuse of the appellate procedure by vexatious litigants. This Tribunal’s Statute provides no such express mechanism. In any event to reach a conclusion that a particular complaint is frivolous, wrongful or vexatious would require an analysis of the substance of the case to sustain a conclusion that it was devoid of merit. In some senses, other than in the most obvious and egregious case, the Tribunal cannot avoid (assuming it can otherwise) looking at the merits of any complaint even if, at the end of the day, the Tribunal concludes that it is without substance. In those circumstances issues may arise about costs. Also, the issue raised by the complainant is, potentially, one of substance and it would be inappropriate, as the IAEA apparently invites the Tribunal to do, to dismiss the complaint at the outset as frivolous or vexatious. This aspect of the IAEA’s pleas is rejected."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 497, 2730
  

  Keywords:

  frivolous complaint;