Judgment No. 4542
Decision
1. IFAD shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 4,000 euros. 2. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; probationary period; performance
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s settled case law states that an appeal submitted to the wrong authority within the prescribed time limit is not irreceivable on that account, because it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the authority which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 2017, consideration 6, 2345, consideration 1(b), 2882, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, 3423, consideration 9(b), 3424, consideration 8(b), 3425, consideration 7, and 3595, consideration 10). In such a situation, it is therefore not sufficient for the incompetent authority merely to inform the complainant that it is not competent and to suggest that she or he apply to the competent authority (see Judgment 3595, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2017, 2345, 2882, 3027, 3423, 3424, 3425, 3595
Keywords
internal appeal; duty to forward appeal to competent body
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s internal appeal was receivable. Contrary to what IFAD submits, the complaint before the Tribunal is therefore receivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to the extent that it seeks the setting aside of the decision of 20 February 2017. In addition, the decision of 20 February 2017 is tainted by an error of law in that it rejected the complainant’s appeal as time-barred.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal
|