Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 973, 819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 284
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 4399
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
These findings reflect a balanced and thoughtful analysis by the IAC, as the primary trier of fact, of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, as such, they merit considerable deference (see Judgment 4180, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4180
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4397
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the internal appeal procedure was procedurally flawed as the principle of equality of arms was not respected when the presiding member of the Appeals Committee chamber refused to postpone the hearing as a “purely arbitrary measure”. This assertion is unfounded. […] By letter of 18 May 2018, the Appeals Committee’s Secretariat informed the complainant’s attorney that the hearing was scheduled for 11 June 2018. On 22 May the complainant’s attorney requested to postpone the hearing due to the fact that she would be away on vacation […]. The presiding member of the chamber decided to maintain the hearing as it could not be postponed for other than compelling reasons. […] The finding that a vacation was not considered to be a compelling reason warranting postponement of the hearing, in the present case, cannot be considered unreasonable nor arbitrary.
Keywords:
equality of arms; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4396
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reimburse him the notary fees which he incurred for the certification of his signature on the annual declaration required for recipients of an invalidity allowance.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[S]ubstantiation or non-substantiation of a claim goes to the merits of the claim. It is not a function of receivability or irreceivability.
Keywords:
internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4392
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw the disciplinary sanction of reprimand and remove it from her personal file.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions (see, for a similar case, Judgment 2113, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 4375
131st Session, 2021
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a selection procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that, while it would be ideal to have a properly appointed JAAB prior to the lodging of any appeal, it recognizes that this is not always possible and there is no general requirement for that. The formation of an administrative internal body with quasi-judicial functions after receiving an appeal does not affect the body’s impartiality or appearance of impartiality. The principle of impartiality is secured by the balance of the JAAB’s members appointed by both the Director General and the Staff Association and their joint selection of additional members. The complainant was given the opportunity to contest the appointment of any of the members, and in fact did so, thus his right to a properly composed JAAB was preserved.
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] rightly contends that her appeal to the Joint Committee was not considered, at least in appearance, in compliance with the essential requirements as to impartiality.
First, the written evidence shows that a member of that Committee – who, according to the complainant’s undisputed assertion, was the spouse of the only other candidate participating in the contested competition, and whose disqualification the complainant had requested for that very reason – took part in hearing the case in question. The Tribunal considers that this member faced, in the circumstances of the case, a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw. The practical difficulties put forward by the organisation to justify the fact that he did not do so cannot be accepted, particularly as the member in question had an alternate.
Second, the Joint Committee had, as already stated, asked the head of the Legal Department to provide it with an opinion in connection with its examination of the complainant’s appeal. However, as a member of the Committee pointed out in a dissenting opinion, that request breached the principle of impartiality since, in particular, that official was herself involved in managing competitions and, above all, she had at the same time been appointed to represent the Executive Director before the Joint Committee in that case.
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the Tribunal’s role where the fact-finding of an internal appeal body is challenged, the Tribunal has reiterated, in Judgment 4171, consideration 5, for example, that its role is not to reweigh the evidence before such a body and that where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4171
Keywords:
fact-finding; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4350
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s failure to provide him with a peaceful working environment and to protect him against a series of allegedly “prejudicial and unjustified adverse actions”.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Ground [...], in which the complainant alleges that there was serious procedural impropriety and conflict of interest when the Deputy Chair of the GBA, having decided with the Chair of the GBA to join the two internal appeals, then sat on the GBA panel that considered the appeals, is also unfounded. The mere fact that a member of a panel decides to join internal appeals does not disqualify that member from continuing to sit on the panel during the ensuing proceedings.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4342
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The report of the Board contains one further error involving the broad generalisation that there is a “broad discretionary power that the Administration retains in procedures leading to appointments at the highest levels of the Organization”. It is true that the Tribunal has consistently emphasised the broad discretionary power of an organisation to appoint a person to a position and all the more so if it is a senior position (see, for example, Judgments 4208, consideration 2, and 2897, consideration 5). But in his brief submitted to the Board, the complainant made a number of quite specific complaints in support of his statement of appeal about the procedure followed referring, in particular, either to an Information Circular specifying temporary measures to fill positions through vacancy announcements or to the staff recruitment and appointment procedures in the Human Resources Implementing Procedures (HRIP). The reply of IFAD in the internal appeal contained the overarching argument that “the applicable rules and procedures governing the selection appointment of staff members, as set out in the Human Resources Policy, the Staff Rules, the HRIP and other applicable IFAD instruments, were fully complied with”. It may be that, properly construed, the provisions relied upon by the complainant either did not apply or had been satisfied. But it is not an adequate answer simply to say there is flexibility about procedure in relation to the filling of senior positions. The arguments had to be addressed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2897, 4208
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4341
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
The complainant argues that the recommendation of the Board was based on grossly inadequate reasoning, referring to Judgment 3995, consideration 4. The Tribunal accepts this is correct. It is to be recalled that the Board said it would not consider the complainant’s case on the merits because he had participated willingly and without objection in the selection process along the way. This led the Board to conclude, for no discernible reason, the complainant did not have a legally protected interest in the matter. The case law of the Tribunal repeatedly establishes that a staff member who has been unsuccessful in a competition has the legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the competition (see Judgments 1832, consideration 3(b)(2), and 3449, consideration 2) and internal appeals bodies have a corresponding duty to consider the challenge (see, for example, Judgment 3590, consideration 2). [...]
Moreover the fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to shortlist the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
The approach of the Board involved an error of law and its effective adoption by the President is tainted by the same error (see Judgment 3490, consideration 18). IFAD defends the President’s approach by saying firstly, he had no power to refer the matter back to the Board and secondly and in any event the President “appraised the [Board]’s Report and recommendations in light of all the documentation he had at his disposal in relation to the [c]omplainant’s appeal”. If the President did not have power to refer the matter back to the Board, he had an obligation to motivate his decision to dismiss the appeal in the face of no motivation of substance from the Board itself. The President did not do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3449, 3490, 3590, 3876, 3995
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the complainant points out in his pleas, citing Judgment 3424, internal appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes between organisations and their staff. It can be expected the members of the body have extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and can bring that knowledge to bear in its consideration of the dispute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 4318
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the Chair of the Appeals Committee was not impartial as she twice put his internal appeal on the agenda for summary proceedings. The Tribunal finds this claim of lack of impartiality to be unsubstantiated. The Appeals Committee is entitled to use the summary procedure in accordance with the [rules].
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4295
130th Session, 2020
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to impose a disciplinary measure against him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A] ruling by an internal appeal body on its own competence or the final decision maker’s acceptance of the ruling cannot give the Tribunal competence to hear a complaint beyond that provided in its Statute. As well, it is for the Tribunal to determine if it is competent to hear the complaint (see Judgments 1509, consideration 14, and 3247, consideration 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509, 3247
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment 4221
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant seeks damages on the ground that her right to a fair trial and to professional legal help during the desk audit or before the Appeals Board was breached. This claim is unfounded. There is no regulatory provision or statement in the case law that makes it mandatory that a staff member be represented by counsel either during the conduct of a desk audit or in the internal appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 995, consideration 5, 1763, consideration 10, 1817, consideration 8, and 2660, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 995, 1763, 1817, 2660
Keywords:
desk audit; due process; internal appeals body; legal assistance;
Judgment 4210
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The fourth argument is that there had been procedural irregularities attending the ABCC’s consideration of his case on 24 May 2017 and 11 December 2017. This is founded on the fact that all members of the ABCC did not sign the minutes of the May and December 2017 meetings. The complainant does not point to any case law or staff rule or regulation that requires all members to sign. Moreover the mere fact that all members did not sign does not even arguably sustain an inference that the decisions actually made were not unanimous (see, for example, Judgments 1763, consideration 13, and 810, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1763
Keywords:
formal flaw; formal requirements; internal appeals body; report; signature;
Judgment 4193
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Vice-President accepted the unanimous recommendation by the IAC to pay the complainant 2,000 euros in damages. He however rejected the further recommendation by the majority to carry out a reassessment of the complainant’s current post to clarify whether its grading was correct, basing the new assessment on the functions and tasks which she had performed since her request for review in 2005. The Tribunal notes that it was within the purview of the IAC to make this recommendation in its endeavour to resolve the dispute (see Judgments 3703, consideration 6, and 3318, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318, 3703
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 4180
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Appeals Board’s report in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations of the Appeals Board were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4171
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will rely on the findings of the Appeals Board and, since no manifest error is apparent, will take for established the facts as the Board ascertained them. As the Tribunal has stated in its case law, an internal appeals body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the investigative powers granted to it. It gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3424, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3424
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 4169
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question of whether the complainant’s partly unfavourable performance rating and the deferral of her within-grade increment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Board’s Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.
The impugned decision of 27 November 2015 rests on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply accepted. That decision is, consequently, tainted by the same error of law and must be set aside (see, for similar cases, Judgments 2742, consideration 40, 2892, consideration 14, 3490, consideration 18, and 3934, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490, 3934
Keywords:
advisory opinion; internal appeals body; judicial review;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, but after having noted that “the [complainant] [...] makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”, the Appeals Board merely stated that “the statements of the [complainant]’s supervisors, her own statement and that of her Counsel [...] before the Reports Board” were taken into account. This sweeping generalisation does not allow the Tribunal to understand the reasons for which the complainant’s allegations concerning the attitude of her supervisor [...] were accepted or dismissed, and to what extent, if at all. Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question [...].
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation;
Judgment 4167
128th Session, 2019
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 reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In order to justify his refusal to disclose the remaining part of the report, the Director General invoked reasons of confidentiality.
According to Article 5 of Office Notice No. 06/11, “[t]he Joint Committee for Disputes shall carry out its activities with complete independence. It shall gather any information it requires to formulate an opinion. The members of the Committee shall be required to respect the confidential nature of information disclosed to them.”
The investigation report obviously contained information that the Committee needed to have access to in order to form an opinion on the merits of the complainant’s internal complaint. Since the members of the said committee are obliged to respect the requirement of confidentiality of the information disclosed to them, as expressly specified in the aforementioned Article 5, the Director General could not invoke this requirement to justify his refusal to disclose the entire report to the Committee.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal also notes that this refusal to disclose resulted in the Committee being unable to give a proper opinion on the merits of the internal complaint. The Director General thus rendered his final decision without the benefit of such an opinion, thereby disregarding an essential safeguard inherent in the right of appeal, which is the requirement that his final decision be informed by the opinion of the Committee. The decision is thus tainted with another irregularity.
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; investigation report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
