Judgment No. 347
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision, which concerns a condition of the complainant's promotion, is a discretionary one. Hence the Tribunal may quash it only if [...]. For the Tribunal "to have a wider power of review, the Director-General would, before he decided on promotions, have had to adopt rules or criteria of which the staff were duly informed."
Keywords
promotion; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The principle of equality, which is embodied in [the Staff Regulations], may be infringed in one of two ways: either by treating differently cases which are plainly alike, or by treating in the same way cases which are plainly unlike."
Keywords
general principle; equal treatment; breach; condition
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant was promoted but granted no seniority at his new step. He failed to impugn that decision in time. Claiming that he had been less fairly treated than officials promoted in the meantime, the complainant submitted a further request to the Director-General, which was dismissed. Although the effect of that decision is the same as that of the first decision, it is an answer to the claim made by the complainant. "Since it is not merely confirmatory, it may be impugned before the Tribunal."
Keywords
confirmatory decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; time bar; promotion; seniority
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant failed to impugn [the] decision within the period of ninety days prescribed in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal and it has therefore become final. Not only is it not now open to challenge but the arguments put forward against it are irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords
time limit; iloat statute
| 
