|
|
 |
|
|
Duplication of proceedings (87,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duplication of proceedings
Total judgments found: 9
Judgment 4778
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was promoted from grade G.6 to grade P.3, challenges what he regards as the withdrawal of the decision to take his family allowance into account when determining his step in his new grade P.3.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Tribunal has already recalled that, in accordance with a recognised general principle of law, a person cannot submit the same matter for decision in two separate proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 4530, consideration 7, 4085, consideration 7, 3291, consideration 6, and 2742, consideration 16).
In the present case, the object of the dispute in the complainant’s third complaint is the remuneration to which he contends he is entitled [...]. The Tribunal notes that this object is identical, to that extent, to one of the claims specifically mentioned in his second complaint [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3291, 4085, 4530
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings; parallel proceedings; same purpose;
Judgment 4718
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s requests to set aside the various guidelines, notices and communiqués, which, he alleges, unlawfully damaged his rights, are also irreceivable. [T]he complainant states that he has already challenged them in a number of internal appeals. His attempt to challenge them in these proceedings is therefore an impermissible duplication of proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3146, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 4710
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administrative Council decision CA/D 10/14 to modify the career system.
Consideration 1
Extract:
In the three cases, the complainant is, in substance, challenging the introduction of the new career system based on decision CA/D 10/14. The Tribunal has a principle that “the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties” (see Judgments 4530, consideration 7, and 3058, consideration 3). It is conceivable that one or more of the complaints could have been dismissed by application of that principle. However, the broad subject matter of each of the complaints is plainly a matter of fundamental importance to the staff of the EPO, including the complainant. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will address each of the complaints individually.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3058, 4530
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings; joinder;
Judgment 4085
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is observed that the complainant supports this complaint detailing events from 2007 to late 2014 and raising issues in a manner which violates the general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 3291, under 6, and 2742, under 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3291
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[I]nasmuch as he sought to litigate the third complaint in the Tribunal when the same matter was before the Appeals Council, that aspect of his fourth complaint which arises out of his second internal appeal (of 9 October 2010) challenging the decision dated 22 September 2010 will also be dismissed. It breached the fundamental rule that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim in concurrent proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 2853, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2853
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]his approach conflicts with the general legal principle that a person cannot litigate the same matter in separate, concurrent proceedings.
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Consideration 6
Extract:
With regard to the parallel appeals, [the Tribunal] notes that in accordance with a general principle of law, a person cannot simultaneously submit the same matter for decision in more than one proceeding.
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he question of harassment was raised in the complaint leading to Judgment 2742 but not then finally determined. The Tribunal noted that, by then, the complainant had filed a formal complaint of harassment with the Joint Grievance Panel and filed written submissions with it in support of her claim. The Tribunal indicated that principle “dictate[d] that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings” and further noted that, although the complainant’s claim of harassment was properly before the Tribunal, its determination should await consideration of the other complaints which had then been lodged. As neither party argues for any other course, it is appropriate to proceed on the basis that the claim of harassment stood over by Judgment 2742 is subsumed in [V.] No. 4. It will, however, be necessary to refer again and in some detail to some of the matters that were discussed in that judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings;
Judgment 2853
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
"It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
"[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
"Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
|
|
|
|
|
