Delay (111,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 162

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• Judgment 3092

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  "It must [...] be observed that, by any standards, a delay of 42 months in completing the processing of a compensation claim [...] is unreasonable."

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; delay; procedure before the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3080

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 19-20

  Extract:

  "According to the Tribunal's case law, when an organisation is ordered to grant a financial benefit to a staff member who fulfilled the legal requirements for claiming it, but who failed to do so as soon as his/her entitlement arose, the benefit in question is due only as from the date of the initial claim by the person concerned, and not the date on which he/she became entitled to the benefit ([...] see Judgment 2550, under 6, or Judgment 2860, under 22). There would be no justification for ordering an organisation unexpectedly to pay potentially large, backdated, aggregated sums for benefits which had not been claimed by the staff member concerned when he or she should have done so. [...] [Moreover] it is true that the position would be different if the Organization itself were responsible for the fact that the [staff member] did not submit a claim [at that time]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2550, 2860
  

  Keywords:

  amount; condition; date; delay; exception; judgment of the tribunal; liability; marital status; medical expenses; non-retroactivity; organisation; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3064

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
  "The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
  

  Keywords:

  acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3041

  
  111th Session, 2011
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3039

  
  111th Session, 2011
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064
  

  Keywords:

  breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3038

  
  111th Session, 2011
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
  "The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."

  Keywords:

  compensation; conduct; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;
  

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  "As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."

  Keywords:

  compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3023

  
  111th Session, 2011
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
  "[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; complainant; delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3016

  
  111th Session, 2011
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "[T]he complainant's claim for egregious delay is founded. More than four years passed from the start of the post classification exercise to when the final decision was made, and that is excessive."

  Keywords:

  claim; complainant; decision; delay; late decision; post classification; reasonable time;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2973

  
  110th Session, 2011
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
  "[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2939

  
  109th Session, 2010
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "[T]he complainants ought to have established that their internal appeal had, in fact, been unduly delayed. Instead of so doing, however, the complainants unilaterally ascertained what in their view would constitute unreasonable delay at the time they filed their appeal. [T]hey did not communicate with the Internal Appeals Committee for the purpose of having the appeal expedited and neither did they make any enquiries to ascertain when the Office's first response would be filed."

  Keywords:

  delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2935

  
  109th Session, 2010
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "[I]t is in the common interest of candidates and international organisations that appointment procedures be conducted with dispatch [...]. [In the present instance, the] extraordinarily long period of time [- four years] was not justified by any particular circumstances."

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; delay; organisation's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2912

  
  109th Session, 2010
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582
  

  Keywords:

  absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2910

  
  109th Session, 2010
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The complainant was entitled to have her grievance dealt with in accordance with the policy and the procedures laid down in [...] the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Agency's failure to do so constitutes not only a breach of its own policy and rules but, as well, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant. In Judgment 2636 the Tribunal pointed out that this duty includes the obligation to ensure that allegations of harassment are "properly and promptly investigated". The Agency seeks to avoid responsibility for the delay that occurred [until] the complainant [...] enquired about the status of her request for investigation. However, it was for the Agency, not the complainant, to ensure that the matter was properly and promptly investigated. Moreover, and even if informal methods of resolution are to be explored, it is important that the facts be promptly ascertained to avoid any possibility that an investigation will be compromised by delay."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
  

  Keywords:

  case law; delay; inquiry; investigation; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2904

  
  108th Session, 2010
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 14 and 15

  Extract:

  The complainant claims compensation for the overall delay involved in this matter.
  "As for the internal appeal process, the Tribunal recalls that the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Thus, the Committee's statement that 'the alleged delays could not be ascribed to it as they were due to the need for arranging election of new members to the Appeals Committee and the time requirements for this' does not relieve the Organization from responsibility for the delay in the process. According to well-established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeals procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). The first appeal lasted for approximately 16 months, even though it hinged on the simple question of receivability. The entire process to date has stretched over eight years. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to be compensated in the amount of 4,000 euros for this delay."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
  

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2878

  
  108th Session, 2010
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
  "[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
  

  Keywords:

  breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner as the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 21 months, which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability (see Judgment 2841, under 9). Therefore the Tribunal awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2841
  

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2868

  
  108th Session, 2010
  South Centre
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  "On the issue of receivability, the Centre contends that [...] the complainant was late in filing his appeal with the Board, and that his complaint is therefore not receivable."
  "The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability. [T]he Chairman of the Board advised the complainant that the Board had decided to grant his request for review of the administrative decisions despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. [T]he Appellate Body accepted the appeal and, as no objection was then taken, it is not open to the Centre to object before the Tribunal."

  Keywords:

  delay; internal appeals body; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2851

  
  107th Session, 2009
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "It took [...] almost two and a half years before the complainant received the final decision impugned in her complaint. The internal appeal procedure was much too long and consequently the complainant was deprived of her right to a speedy resolution of her grievances (see Judgment 2196, under 9), for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of 1,000 euros."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2196
  

  Keywords:

  compensation; delay; internal appeal; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2848

  
  107th Session, 2009
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 34

  Extract:

  "[I]n relation to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings, the Tribunal observes that the complainant has been reasonably compensated for this delay with the Director General's award of 8,000 euros."

  Keywords:

  amount; compensation; delay; internal appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2844

  
  107th Session, 2009
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170
  

  Keywords:

  amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2841

  
  107th Session, 2009
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 7 and 9

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
  "However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
  

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >