|
|
 |
|
|
Estoppel (675,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Estoppel
Total judgments found: 14
Judgment 4671
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As to the second objection to receivability alleging that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was premature, the Tribunal observes that the Organization is not in any event entitled to raise that objection before it because this ground of irreceivability was not mentioned in the Secretary General’s decision of 25 August 2020.
This last objection to receivability must therefore also be dismissed.
Keywords:
estoppel; receivability of application;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the third objection to receivability, alleging that the complainant’s internal appeal was premature, the Tribunal observes that the Organization is not in any event entitled to raise that objection before it because this ground of irreceivability was not mentioned in the Secretary General’s decision of 25 August 2020.
Keywords:
estoppel; receivability of application;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[O]ne matter should be noted. As is apparent from the [applicable] provisions […], the Appellate Body’s decisions are final. Thus, unlike the appellate framework in many international organizations, the final decision on an appeal does not rest with the Executive Head of the organization. In its pleas, the South Centre challenges some of the reasoning and conclusions of the Appellate Body.
Given that this body is invested under the South Centre’s Regulations with the power to make a final decision binding on the organization, it may be doubted that the South Centre is able to impeach its decision-making in the Tribunal. However, this issue was not raised in the pleas and nothing more needs to be said in this judgment.
Keywords:
estoppel; final decision;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The EPO raises, as a threshold issue, whether the complaint is receivable. It can do so notwithstanding that receivability was not raised in the internal appeal, a point relied upon by the complainant in arguing that it cannot be raised now. That is because the issue raised by the EPO is whether the requirements of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal are met. Necessarily that issue can only arise when a complainant seeks to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It cannot arise at an earlier time and could not, in any meaningful way, be raised and determined in the internal appeal. In any event, the Tribunal can address the question of its own motion (Judgment 4317, considerations 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4317
Keywords:
estoppel; exception; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4475
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the handling of her grievance complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal shall first address the issues of receivability raised by the ICC. The complainant objects that these issues were not raised by the defendant in the internal appeal proceedings, thus they fall outside the competence of the Tribunal. This objection is correct only with regard to the fourth head of the receivability challenge, related to the settlement agreement. Indeed the ICC had the possibility to raise that issue during the internal proceedings, and did not, therefore it cannot raise it now before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3160, consideration 14, and 3729, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3729
Keywords:
estoppel; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The defendant] argues that any claim for material damages that may be inferred from the complaint is irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, because the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress available to him regarding such a claim. The Tribunal however observes that, although the complainant did not request material damages in his appeal […] to the Executive Director against the termination decision, he requested material damages in his appeal to the Appeals Committee [….] Moreover, as the Appeals Committee found the complainant’s internal appeal receivable ratione materiae, which would have included the claim for material damages, and the final decision accepted the recommendations of the Committee, the Organization is precluded from raising this plea before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
estoppel; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the 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 13
Extract:
The principle of estoppel implies, by definition, that a party has been induced to act to its detriment by relying on some statement or conduct of the other party (see Judgments 2873, under 7, and 3614, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2873, 3614
Keywords:
estoppel;
Judgment 3950
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In relation to the principle of res judicata, the case law of the Tribunal presently provides, as exemplified by Judgment 3867, consideration 9, that “the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case for the principle of res judicata to apply (see, for example, Judgments 1216, under 3, 2993, under 6, or 3248, under 3)”. Whether this now states, too narrowly, the applicable principle or principles involving estoppel, such as “issue estoppel” or abuse of process, and would preclude a complainant re-agitating substantially the same issues based on substantially the same evidence is a matter to be resolved in other proceedings in due course and not in the present proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248, 3867
Keywords:
estoppel; res judicata;
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.
Considerations 8 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts [...] that the executive head of an organisation has a discretionary power to review an earlier decision and can, for good reason and acting bone fide, vary or rescind that decision (see, for example, Judgment 618, consideration 5, though compare Judgment 3871, consideration 3), unless the earlier decision is immune from revision either because of the effect of normative legal documents within the organisation such as staff rules or regulations, or because of the application of principles found in the Tribunal’s case law such as promissory estoppel (see, for example, Judgment 1781, considerations 12 to 14). But the rationale for the reversal decision, in the present case, does not withstand close scrutiny. [...]
It is true that the remedy chosen in the decision [...] certainly compensated the complainant, financially, for the direct effect of the unlawful non-renewal of her contract as an act of retaliation. However, that decision fails to recognise that bare financial compensation for lost income arising directly from non-renewal of the complainant’s contract for an unlawful reason might be an insufficient remedy. This failure is an error of law involving a failure to take into account relevant considerations.
Keywords:
estoppel; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 3729
123rd Session, 2017
Permanent Court of Arbitration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which her appointment was terminated.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Had that point concerning receivability been raised in the internal appeal, it may have had prospects of success in these proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1653, consideration 6, 3181, consideration 11, and 3577, considerations 8 and 9). But it was not raised in the internal appeal and, accordingly, cannot now be relied upon for the first time by the PCA in these proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2255, considerations 12 and 13, and 3160, consideration 14). Accordingly, the PCA’s contention concerning receivability is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1653, 2255, 3160, 3181, 3577
Keywords:
estoppel; receivability of the complaint;
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 6
Extract:
[T]he submissions show that WIPO did not claim that the complainant had no cause of action at any time during the internal appeal proceedings, yet such an objection could equally have been raised at that stage and WIPO does not mention any circumstance that prevented it from so doing. The Tribunal has on a number of occasions held that in such circumstances an organisation may not raise such an objection for the first time in the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1655, under 9 and 10, 2255, under 12 to 14, and 3160, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1655, 2255, 3160
Keywords:
estoppel; no cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal [...] notes that during the initial competition WIPO must perforce have accepted that the complainant met all of the conditions required by the vacancy announcement since, far from being excluded from the competition at the outset, the complainant was shortlisted for an interview with the Appointment and Promotion Board. It is hence inappropriate for WIPO to suddenly advance this objection, which is apt to cast doubt on the lawfulness of its own conduct.
Keywords:
estoppel;
Judgment 3614
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The final subsidiary argument concerns the principle of estoppel. This argument is apparently based on the fact that the EPO, in the internal appeal, initially accepted that the internal appeal was in part admissible but subsequently changed its position and argued that it was inadmissible in its entirety. [...] As the EPO argues in its reply, an element of the principle is that a person has acted to their detriment by relying on some statement or representation of fact made by another. While the EPO did seemingly change its position, there is nothing to suggest that this led to the complainant acting to her detriment. She had an opportunity to respond to the final position of the EPO though she was unsuccessful in her arguments. Again this argument is rejected. In any event, it was open to the IAC to address the question of the receivability of the appeal in its entirety irrespective of the position adopted by the EPO."
Keywords:
estoppel;
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 592
51st Session, 1983
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organisation argues that by accepting the final extension of his appointment, the complainant waived his right to appeal and the complaint is irreceivable because it is in breach of the principles of good faith and estoppel. The Tribunal holds that waiver of a right to bring action may not be presumed; waiver is binding only if it is express or clearly implied on the facts. Mere acceptance of a decision giving him partial satisfaction does not necessarily denote waiver of the claims which had not yet been met.
Keywords:
acceptance; condition; contract; estoppel; extension of contract; good faith; receivability of the complaint; waiver of right of appeal;
|
|
|
|
|
