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: 299
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 4044
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3695.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Foundational to the Tribunal’s reasoning in [Judgment 3695] was the duty of an executive head of an organisation to substantiate a final decision departing from the recommendations of an appeal committee. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to Judgments 2339, 2699 and 3208.
However, for the purpose of the present application for execution, the applicable principle was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2092, consideration 10. The Tribunal said a departure from a recommendation of an appeal committee must be explained, but also said: “[w]hen the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he [or she] is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself” (see also, for example, Judgments 2577 and 2611).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2339, 2577, 2611, 2699, 3208, 3695
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4028
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is apparent from these conclusions and recommendations that the Appeal Board did not give an opinion on the merits of the appeal. As a result, the complainants were deprived of an essential safeguard inherent in their right of appeal, namely that the Secretary-General be informed by the Board’s opinion when taking his final decision.
It follows that the impugned decision is unlawful as it was not taken in the light of such an opinion.
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the internal appeal body’s consideration of the appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notable before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found in Judgment 3424, under 11, that, “apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). [...] [T]he [a]ppeal 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 broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof.”
In this case, the Appeal Board’s report, consisting of five essential points, does not provide full details of the disputed competition procedures, since the Board merely presents its findings without listing the complainant’s arguments or providing a preliminary discussion allowing its position to be understood. This very succinct report does not enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether the Board considered the disputed competition procedures in sufficient depth. Since the plea of a breach of the right to an effective internal appeal is well founded, the impugned decision must be set aside for that reason, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas concerning the lawfulness of the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2811, 3424
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 4026
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4024
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Considerations 6-9
Extract:
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7). [...]
In the Tribunal’s view, there was sufficient evidence upon which the Joint Appeals Board could have concluded, as it did, that the reclassification process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of AM.II/3. The Tribunal also notes that reasons were given for the decision not to reclassify the complainant’s post. In short, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the evaluation or of the reclassification exercise involved a mistaken conclusion (see Judgment 3589, consideration 4). In the foregoing premises, the complainant was not financially disadvantaged by the decision not to reclassify her post.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3589
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4010
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Appeals Committee’s report in the present matter, as it was in Judgment 3969, consideration 11, is a mostly balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations 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, 3969
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4005
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, a reading of the report shows that the DAB engaged in an in-depth consideration of the complainant’s and Ms M.’s submissions, reviewed the relevant case law, specifically considered each of the alleged forms of harassment, the issue of retaliation, and carefully weighed the evidence with which it was provided. It is also observed that the DAB’s conclusions and recommendations were based on a thorough and balanced consideration of all the relevant facts and case law. It is now well established in the case law that such a report warrants considerable deference (see, for example, Judgment 3969, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Consideration 8
Extract:
These circumstances are not the same as those in Judgment 3184, for example, in which the Tribunal stated, in consideration 15, that if a member of an internal appeal board had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new internal appeal board to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal notes, at the outset, that the Appeals Board’s report is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational and the recommendations made respectfully. 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 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3906
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3905
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.
Keywords:
abolition of post; internal appeals body; mistake of law; termination of employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3858
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he report, findings and conclusions of the Appeals Board should be treated with considerable deference.
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3846
124th Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the working conditions to which she was subjected during a secondment and contends that the ITU breached the rules on performance appraisals.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he refusal of the Appeal Board to authorise the filing of a rejoinder by the complainant does not constitute a breach of the adversarial principle, because the [organisation]’s reply did not disclose any genuinely new facts. The Appeal Board was under no obligation to call the witnesses whom the complainant wished it to hear, since it was for that body to decide whether such a step was appropriate.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3831
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.
Consideration 28
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3597, under 2, and the cases cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3785
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his request for review of an EPO notice concerning patent applications, having regard to the composition of the Appeals Committee.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Two members of the Appeals Committee were volunteers who were not appointed by the Staff Committee as specifically required by the applicable provisions and therefore the composition of the Appeals Committee cannot be considered to be the balanced composition as provided for by the rules.
The Staff Committee, which is directly elected by staff, is responsible for appointing two full members and two alternate members of the Appeals Committee as representative of the collective interests of the staff. The two volunteers did not have that representative capacity.
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3732
123rd Session, 2017
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the contested JAC member could not be a member of the JAC assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the JAC had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. His impartiality may be open to question (see Judgment 2671, under 10) as there are reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgment 2225, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3703
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the extension by one month and the subsequent non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is true that, as the complainant submits, an advisory appeal body should not limit its power to review discretionary decisions in the same was as a judicial body would do (see Judgment 3125, under 12), but this was not what the Joint Committee did. The issue it had to resolve, having regard to the all the circumstances of the case, was that of the lawfulness of the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract. It might well have proposed a solution which it deemed to be more consonant with the principle of proportionality, but it was by no means obliged to do so, as it considered that the complainant’s criticism was unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3125
Keywords:
internal appeals body; proportionality;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
