Delay (111,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 162
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Organisation decided to withhold the complainant's salary increment. It failed to respond either to her initial request for review of the decision or to her subsequent appeal to the appeal board. "Since she succeeds in part, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which are aggravated by the [Organisation's] wholly unacceptable treatment of her internal appeal."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; failure to answer claim; injury; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 2160
93rd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Clearly, most of the relief claimed is not within the power of the Tribunal to grant at this stage for it depends upon a finding by a competent body (a medical board) that the complainant in fact suffers from the psychological condition mentioned and a finding by another competent body (a compensation board) that such condition is service-related. Equally clearly, however, she is entirely within her rights to demand that such bodies be constituted without delay."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; delay; illness; medical board; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A staff member who files an appeal is entitled to expect a decision to be taken within a reasonable time. Since an internal appeal is a necessary prelude to judicial review, the organization too must respect the need for expeditious proceedings. In this case more than two-and-a-half years elapsed between the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Committee and the Director-General's decision to reject it. Circumstances and the nature of the case demanded an expeditious appeal procedure. Since, in the internal appeal, the complainant was challenging a decision not to keep her on and claiming reinstatement, she needed to know quickly what the outcome of the appeal would be. Indeed, her future to some extent depended on it. Though it raised some delicate issues, the case was not particularly complex. The conclusion is that the appeal was not sufficiently expeditious. The amount of time usually needed to deal with such a case was far exceeded. As a result the complainant suffered injury warranting redress."
Keywords:
contract; delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; material damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2096
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The [contract renewal] board was under the obligation to take into account performance appraisal reports [...]. The [complainant's] performance appraisal report for 1999 had not been completed for submission to the board. Yet, before a decision is taken not to renew a contract, precedent has it that it is a fundamental obligation to examine the staff member's performance appraisal. Failure to comply with that obligation constitutes a procedural flaw as it has the effect of excluding an essential fact from consideration (see, in particular, Judgment 1525 [...] and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1525
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; contract; delay; disregard of essential fact; effect; iloat; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2064
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant [objects] to the amount of time the [organisation] took to finalise [his staff] reports [...] The [organisation] did not respect all the time limits, which caused considerable delay. Such delay could per se have adverse effects, particularly on the way relatively distant facts are perceived. But performance reports continue to be useful [...] Failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports but, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account".
Keywords:
consequence; delay; performance report;
Judgment 2039
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2031
90th Session, 2001
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"A delay in the internal appeal process could never allow a complainant to succeed on the merits; at most it might entitle him or her to appeal directly to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal;
Judgment 1970
89th Session, 2000
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"A complainant cannot sit back and do nothing when an appeal is lodged. He must pursue the appeal diligently. Only then can he claim that delay is unreasonable. In the present case, the complainant failed to exhaust the means of internal appeal because he did not pursue his appeal diligently; therefore, he does not qualify to bring a direct appeal to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Receivability falls to be determined at the time that a complaint is filed, not at some later date. As at 29 July 1999 the complainant had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. He had filed his appeal in time. Approximately a year later he wrote to enquire about its progress and had been informed that the administration had done nothing but would move forward as soon as possible. He filed his complaint just over four months later having heard nothing further from the administration. At that time almost twenty months had elapsed since the original challenged decision had been published. The administration's plea that it had a heavy backlog of internal appeals to deal with may be a reason for the inordinate delay, but it is not an excuse. As at 29 July 1999, it was simply not reasonable to expect the complainant to wait any longer to see even the beginning of the end of the internal appeal procedure. If the organisation was overloaded with internal appeals, it was for it to remedy the situation rather than expect the complainant to bear the consequences."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; complaint; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;
Judgment 1812
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"There is no single time limit for executing judgments. The Tribunal's practice is to let the organisation have a reasonable amount of time to act, and what is reasonable will depend, among other things, on the circumstances and the issues at stake. To be sure, the Tribunal has said more than once that any lump-sum award by the Tribunal is to be paid in 30 days [see Judgments 1620 and 1748]. That deadline holds good when the organisation may readily work out the amount due. But it does not when a case is sent back for a new decision: the time to be allowed will then turn on the peculiarities of the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 1748
Keywords:
application for execution; case law; case sent back to organisation; delay; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; practice; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1736
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Of course the first report should have been done earlier and the complainant is right enough to cite Rule 540.1. but [...] he was himself largely to blame for the delay, not having filled up the report form until [a given date]. Besides, his second- level supervisor had told him orally, before putting it in the report, that he was not cooperative enough. It is plain on the evidence that he knew full well that his performance had been found wanting; so he may not properly argue that he was told too late to be able to improve."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 540.1
Keywords:
complainant; date; delay; duty to inform; liability; performance report; period; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 1549
81st Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1534
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The FAO submits that his complaint is irreceivable because he has failed to exhaust his internal remedies. Though he filed before he got the final decision [...] the Committee took a whole year to come up with a three-page report and the Director-General another five months to let the complainant have a decision. Such delays are exorbitant and unpardonable. Under the circumstances the complainant was entitled to come straight to the Tribunal without waiting any longer for a reply from the Director-General. The objections to receivability fail."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1502
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organization's "own interests and sound management demand strict compliance with time limits, and non-compliance means forfeiting a right or the exercise thereof: see Judgment 1446 [...] under 3, the further judgments cited therein and Judgment 1485 [...]. A time limit is not to be waived just because claims are seldom late or because the consequences of refusing waiver would be too harsh."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 1485
Keywords:
case law; delay; exception; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Time limits must be construed in good faith. If an organisation wants to put procedural restrictions on one of the staff member's rights or on the exercise thereof it must draft clearly enough to avoid setting traps."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376
Keywords:
case law; delay; good faith; interpretation; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 1469
80th Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"To satisfy the requirement in Article VII(1) the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose for internal procedures."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1439
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization refused to promote the complainant with effect from the date at which he met the material conditions on the grounds that he had been subject to disciplinary action. The Tribunal quashed the disciplinary action in an earlier judgment and the complainant finally got his promotion, albeit with some delay. The Tribunal rejects his claim to moral damages. "The delay in granting him promotion caused him no moral injury because the organisation acted in good faith in originally deciding not to promote him."
Keywords:
date; delay; disciplinary measure; effective date; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1413
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[The complainant's] claim to a higher grade is irreceivable. Even if her career did suffer delay she may not seek redress on that account in the context of the choice of career path; nor may she impugn any decision that she failed to challenge in time or object to her grading as administrative assistant."
Keywords:
assignment; career; complaint; delay; post classification; promotion; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1412
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant may not, "in the context of a challenge to the choice of career path, object to earlier delays which he believes held up his advancement. Nor has he any grounds for saying that putting him on path V may 'discourage' him: CERN's evident purpose in making such ambitious reforms is to act in the general interest and try to ensure equal treatment for all its staff."
Keywords:
assignment; career; delay; equal treatment; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1404
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Headquarters Appeals Board before the Regional Board had issued its report. "The complainant's own behaviour affected the regional proceedings and made for delay in the Regional Board's report and recommendation to the Regional Director. Not to be ignored either is the effect of the change in membership, which fell within the time allotted for hearing the case. On the evidence the complainant has failed to show that the Board did not intend to report within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; time limit;
Consideration 9
Extract:
In view of the exceptional circumstances in the country where the Appeals Board was to meet - political upheaval and riots - "the delay in the Board's handling of [the] appeal was not wholly due to any shortcomings of its own and in any event did not warrant direct referral to the Headquarters Board."
Keywords:
delay; exception; internal appeals body; report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
