Joinder (52, 53, 54,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Joinder
Total judgments found: 185
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 5002
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant requests the joinder of this complaint with her fourth complaint in which she centrally challenges the decision to reassign her to Malawi under the UNAIDS mobility policy, which she did not accept, eventually culminating in the termination of her appointment which she challenges in the present complaint. She submits that the impugned decision in her seventh complaint “arose out of the improper reassignment and retaliation that [she] was subjected to, which decision [she] contested separately prior to her separation from service”. She requests that these two complaints be joined in the interest of judicial efficiency and economy, as a finding in her favour in the fourth complaint would render the decision to terminate her employment unlawful. WHO states that it does not object to the application for joinder, as it considers that the “circumstances” applicable to the fourth complaint are relevant to the seventh complaint, even though the two cases are distinct in fact and law. However, the “circumstances” refer to the fact that the two complaints stem from the same continuum of events, which the Tribunal stated in consideration 6 of Judgment 4753 is not a sufficient basis for joining complaints. As this complaint and the complainant’s fourth complaint do not raise the same or similar questions of fact and law, they will not be joined to form the subject of a single judgment, although they will be considered in the same session by the same panel of judges.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4970
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure demoting her from grade P-3 to grade P-2.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to “combine” the eleven complaints that she has filed before the Tribunal. While the facts in each of these complaints are part of the same continuum of events, the legal issues raised are quite discrete. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4968
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision, taken following a preliminary evaluation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment against Mr R.S.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to “combine” the eleven complaints that she has filed before the Tribunal. While the facts in each of these complaints are part of the same continuum of events, the legal issues raised are quite discrete. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4967
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision, taken without an investigation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment against Mr R.V.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to “combine” the eleven complaints that she has filed before the Tribunal. While the facts in each of these complaints are part of the same continuum of events, the legal issues raised are quite discrete. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4963
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante – dont le poste a été supprimé – conteste la décision de l’assigner à un nouveau poste, tout en la rétrogradant de deux grades, celle de l’affecter de manière temporaire à un autre poste avec effet rétroactif et celle de rejeter sa candidature dans le cadre d’une procédure de concours.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, en principe, le critère déterminant pour joindre des requêtes est qu’elles soulèvent des questions de droit ou de fait identiques ou similaires, et il n’est pas suffisant qu’elles s’inscrivent dans la même série d’événements (voir le jugement 4753, au considérant 6).
En l’espèce, étant donné que les quatre requêtes visent à contester plusieurs décisions distinctes, qu’elles ont fait l’objet de procédures internes différentes ayant donné ou devant donner lieu à des avis séparés de la Commission paritaire des litiges, et que, bien que les allégations de harcèlement reviennent dans toutes les affaires, chaque requête soulève des questions et des moyens spécifiques, le Tribunal considère qu’il convient de traiter les différentes affaires séparément et de prononcer des jugements distincts pour chacune d’elles.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4962
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste l’évaluation de ses performances pour l’année 2019, ainsi que les décisions subséquentes de «geler» son avancement d’échelon et de la soumettre à un plan d’amélioration de ses performances.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, en principe, le critère déterminant pour joindre des requêtes est qu’elles soulèvent des questions de droit ou de fait identiques ou similaires, et il n’est pas suffisant qu’elles s’inscrivent dans la même série d’événements (voir le jugement 4753, au considérant 6).
En l’espèce, étant donné que les quatre requêtes visent à contester plusieurs décisions distinctes, qu’elles ont fait l’objet de procédures internes différentes ayant donné ou devant donner lieu à des avis séparés de la Commission paritaire des litiges, et que, bien que les allégations de harcèlement reviennent dans toutes les affaires, chaque requête soulève des questions et des moyens spécifiques, le Tribunal considère qu’il convient de traiter les différentes affaires séparément et de prononcer des jugements distincts pour chacune d’elles.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4961
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de rejeter sa plainte pour harcèlement moral, ainsi que ce qu’elle considère être une décision d’annulation de l’évaluation de ses performances pour 2019 et la décision de remettre en place son ancien supérieur hiérarchique et de le désigner comme responsable de l’établissement de son évaluation annuelle pour 2019.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, en principe, le critère déterminant pour joindre des requêtes est qu’elles soulèvent des questions de droit ou de fait identiques ou similaires, et il n’est pas suffisant qu’elles s’inscrivent dans la même série d’événements (voir le jugement 4753, au considérant 6).
En l’espèce, étant donné que les quatre requêtes visent à contester plusieurs décisions distinctes, qu’elles ont fait l’objet de procédures internes différentes ayant donné ou devant donner lieu à des avis séparés de la Commission paritaire des litiges, et que, bien que les allégations de harcèlement reviennent dans toutes les affaires, chaque requête soulève des questions et des moyens spécifiques, le Tribunal considère qu’il convient de traiter les différentes affaires séparément et de prononcer des jugements distincts pour chacune d’elles.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4958
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest Eurocontrol’s implied decision to reject their request to be paid the flat-rate shift allowance in lieu of the ancillary remuneration currently paid to them for the shift work they perform.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Complaints have been filed by 17 individuals on the staff of Eurocontrol. They each work as a Simulator Pilot and each complaint raises the same legal issue concerning their remuneration, namely their entitlement to the flat-rate shift allowance, a shift allowance payable in a specified way. The circumstances of each are not materially different. Accordingly, the complaints will be joined so that one judgment can be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder; same;
Judgment 4907
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for interpretation of Judgments 4568, 4569 and 4584.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The three [...] applications for interpretation concern related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; joinder;
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The five [...] applications for review are directed against judgments concerning related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for review; joinder;
Judgment 4905
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to set the rate of deterioration of physical health resulting from an occupational accident at only 15 per cent and, consequently, to award him the sum of 11,874.60 Swiss francs as an indemnity for deterioration of physical health.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The two complaints are closely linked since, as has just been stated, the fourth complaint is directed against the decision that rejected the internal appeal lodged against the decision which is the subject of the third complaint. It should also be noted that the complainant’s pleas in support of both complaints are identical in every respect.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complaints should be joined in order that a single judgment be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4900
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In view of the similarities and overlaps between the first and fourth complaints described above, in particular of the finding that they arose from the handling of the same harassment complaint, that the facts giving rise to the two decisions in question are closely intertwined, that the parties’ arguments overlap to a large extent and that, although there were two internal appeals, the JAAB issued a single report intending, at least in theory, to cover the consideration of both situations, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to join these two complaints in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization asks the Tribunal to order the joinder of these two complaints, on the grounds that the two internal appeals lodged by the complainant against the initial decisions [...] were joined by order of the Joint Appeals Committee, that the two complaints are “inseparably” linked and that joining them would allow savings to be made on the management costs that would be incurred if the Tribunal were to deal with the cases separately.
The complainant states that he is strongly opposed to this request for joinder, contending in particular that, “in advocating a joinder of cases before the Tribunal on economic grounds”, the Organization breaches its own rules concerning the joinder of internal appeals, causes delays to the appeal procedure and adversely affects the right of appeal, both administrative and contentious, by making the conditions for the exercise of that right more stringent.
The Tribunal recalls its case law, according to which, in principle, the touchstone for the joinder of complaints is that they involve the same or similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events (see Judgment 4753, consideration 6). Recently, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the cost of judgments is an irrelevant consideration in that regard (see Judgment 4822, consideration 4).
In the present case, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is a certain connection between the decision to suppress the complainant’s post [...] and the decision to terminate his appointment when it was not possible to reassign him thereafter. However, the decisions in question are different in nature, the legal context for each is, in part, individual, and the fundamental issues raised are different. It must also be noted that the two decisions are not entirely interdependent, since a measure taken to suppress a post could be followed by a reassignment decision, the outcome of which would be completely different from a termination of appointment. It is irrelevant in this respect that the Joint Appeals Committee, acting within its own prerogative, considered it appropriate to join the two internal appeals that had been referred to it.
For these reasons, the Tribunal will not order that the two complaints be joined in the light of the aforementioned case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753, 4822
Keywords:
financial considerations; joinder;
Judgment 4822
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organisation asked that the two complaints be joined because it considers that they rest on the same facts and originate from the same decision of 29 January 2020. But, while it is true that the facts in each of these complaints are part of a same continuum of events, the legal issues raised in each of them are different. The two complaints also do not pertain to the same impugned decision. The provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations involved are furthermore not the same, and the processes that led to the impugned decisions identified by the complainant were not the same either. Finally, the reasons developed by the parties, notably on the issues of receivability, are different from one complaint to the other.
Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. But, if necessary, the Tribunal will refer to the two judgments to avoid any potential overlapping.
In this regard, the Tribunal observes that one of the motivations for the request for joinder of the Organisation is pecuniary. In the proceedings it filed in the second complaint, ESO mentioned that a joinder “would absolve [the Organisation] from having to pay twice the Tribunal’s substantial court expenses irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.
The starting point in dealing with this issue is whether the cost to the organisation is a relevant consideration in determining whether there should be joinder. The principles applied by the Tribunal on the general issue of joinder have developed over a period of more than 45 years. As discussed in Judgment 4753, consideration 3:
“Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.”
And later in consideration 6:
“The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. [...]”
The cost to the organisation of multiple judgments has no part to play in the exercise of the discretionary power concerning joinder. It is an irrelevant consideration.
Additionally, while ESO pleads that having only one judgment would protect the Organisation “against the cost[s] and administrative demands of unnecessary litigation issues”, the Tribunal cannot ignore that ESO itself acknowledged that “it is the law of its Staff Rules and Regulations which provide that different procedures apply for challenging the Director General’s decisions not to grant [the] complainant an indefinite contract and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond the one year granted”. In other words, there are two different and separate complaints filed not because of unnecessary litigation issues raised by the complainant, but because of the way the Staff Rules and Regulations of ESO are organized.
That said, the Tribunal notes, however, that, while arguing that the submission of two complaints was not chosen by him since he had no other alternative than to follow the procedural paths imposed by the Organisation, the complainant still disputes the assertion of ESO that it should not “be punished twice for the same conduct”. As a result, he maintained the separate claims for relief sought in both complaints even though there was clearly some overlapping between the two. Conceding there was indeed some overlapping here would have been the expected and logical position to adopt on the part of the complainant. It is regrettable to see that he did not do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
Keywords:
financial considerations; joinder;
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.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[The organisation] asked for the present complaint to be joined to the complainant’s second complaint, which gave rise to Judgment 4777, also delivered in public this day. It is true that the factual contexts behind the two complaints converge in many respects and that, as set out below, the object of each one is redundant. However, given that the complaints involve different impugned decisions, different opinions of the Appeal Board, and provisions of the Staff Rules that are not entirely the same, and that they are based on arguments that differ in content, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to deal with the two cases separately and to render a separate judgment for each of them.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. A recent example is Judgment 4600, consideration 2. In that case, no joinder was ordered, notwithstanding that the complaints, the joinder of which was sought, concerned the same continuum of events. If the complaints concern the same or similar questions of fact and law, then it is probable that the same or related orders will be made dispositive of the several complaints.
In the present case, notwithstanding the linkage discussed earlier, the ultimate legal issues are quite different. At base, the first complaint requires a consideration of the legality of placing the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file. Any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. At base, the second complaint addresses a different issue, namely the lawfulness of the decision to close the complainant’s harassment complaint, and again, any orders made, will address that question, unless the complaint is dismissed. Therefore, the two complaints will not be joined to form the subject of a single judgment, though they will be considered at the same session by the same panel of judges.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4600
Keywords:
identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; flaw; identical facts; investigation; joinder; personal file;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal; order;
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 5
Extract:
[T]he joinder of a complaint with pending internal appeals is not possible.
Keywords:
joinder;
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 4707
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the modifications brought to the subsistence allowance.
Consideration 1
Extract:
Three complaints have been filed with the Tribunal commencing proceedings against […] CERN. […] Each retained the same lawyer and both the factual circumstances and the legal issues of each are substantially the same. Accordingly, the complaints are joined so that one judgment can be rendered.
Keywords:
joinder;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant also asks that this complaint be joined to his fourth complaint in which he seeks the setting aside of the decision concluding that some of his absences were unjustified, since he considers that the two complaints rest on the same facts. The Organisation opposes this. Given that the two complaints involve different impugned decisions, different opinions of the Joint Committee for Disputes, and provisions of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency which are not entirely the same, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to deal with the two cases separately and to render a separate judgment for each of them. Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined.
Keywords:
joinder;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
