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 2671
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In Judgment 1317, under 31, the Tribunal stated: 'An internal appeal procedure that works properly is an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony in an international organisation [...].'
The notion of 'working well' necessarily encompasses the requirement that the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(c)
Extract:
"Generally speaking, serving or retired staff members who turn to an internal appeal body are entitled to have their case heard within a reasonable period of time without having to endure excessive and unjustified delays resulting from the malfunctioning of that body, or from the inadequate resources at its disposal. This duty to take prompt action is reinforced where the dispute is such that it must be resolved rapidly if resolution is to serve any purpose. [...] Contrary to the defendant's view, the complainant therefore had good reason to consider that the lack of a decision within a reasonable time amounted to an implied decision of rejection which he was entitled to challenge before the Tribunal (see Judgments 499 and 791, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499, 791
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; competence of tribunal; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; reasonable time; retirement; right;
Judgment 2598
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.
In view of the [...] circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.
The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.
The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;
Judgment 2584
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable because the internal appeals, although timely filed with the President of the Office, had not yet been considered by the Appeals Committee at the time when the complaints were filed. "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...] The complaints are [therefore] receivable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of EPO Service Regulations
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; complaint; date; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; patere legem; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2556
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Organisation adopted a new method of calculating replacement days granted to inspectors returning from a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities inspection because of the inconsistency between the practice with regard to replacement days and the terms of Administrative Directive AD/PER/12. The complainant contested that new method. Because the earlier practice had become in its view "well established", the Appeals Council recommended that the appeal be upheld, the previous practice reinstated and the replacement days that should have been granted in accordance with that practice reimbursed. The Tribunal considers that "[a]s the practice of granting a replacement day for each Saturday, Sunday or official OPCW holiday falling during an inspection period is inconsistent with the terms of AD/PER/12, that practice cannot be elevated to the status of law so as to entitle the complainant to additional replacement days, as was seemingly thought by the Appeals Council."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: OPCW Administrative Directive AD/PER/12
Keywords:
administrative instruction; advisory opinion; compensatory measure; difference; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; practice; precedence of rules; provision; public holiday; reckoning; recommendation; refund; right; written rule;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Joint Appeals Panel [examining a case of alleged harassment] fell into [...] error by analysing certain of the incidents upon which the complainant relied as separate or independent events without considering them in their overall context."
Keywords:
effect; evidence; harassment; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Consideration 31
Extract:
To advance serious allegations that have not been properly investigated against an official before a body that must issue a decision or recommendation concerning that official amounts to "serious failure of due process and want of fairness and good faith".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; decision; due process; equity; good faith; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Consideration 32
Extract:
"Although the complainant provided the report of [her doctor] to the Joint Appeals Panel, that did not amount to implied authorisation for it to be given to [her two successive supervisors] for their comments (see Judgment 2271, under 7). There were other means available to the Administration to obtain answers from [the supervisors] to the claims made by the complainant. The disclosure to them of the medical report was a serious breach of confidence and one that, in the circumstances, was particularly insensitive."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body; medical opinion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; applicable law; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2424
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
Judgment 2417
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416
Keywords:
claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;
Judgment 2416
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 11
Extract:
"The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Judgment 2391
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was issued a written censure. "Before the Appeal Board, [he] argued that [this] decision [...] was taken in breach of the principle of proportionality. In its report, the Board recommended that the parties seek a compromise solution in the light of that principle. [T]he Secretary-General did not follow the recommendation of the Appeal Board [...]. He was therefore under an obligation to state the reasons why he was disregarding that recommendation and instead maintaining the initial sanction, which is the second most serious, particularly so as to enable the Tribunal to check whether the principle of proportionality had been observed (see Judgment 2339, under 5). As the Secretary-General has not satisfied that obligation, his decision [...] must be set aside on the grounds that no reason has been given for the chosen sanction and the case must be referred back to him for a new decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
breach; consequence; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; internal appeals body; judicial review; organisation's duties; proportionality; recommendation; refusal; report; settlement out of court; warning;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
Consideration 13
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "Had this report been seen only by the persons entitled to receive it, it might not have injured the complainant's reputation, given that it was issued by an authority of the Organization which had no power of decision. However, as pointed out above, the whole of the report was communicated to persons who were not entitled to see it and there is no doubt that this disclosure, which was contrary to the obligation of confidentiality by which the Ombudsperson is bound pursuant to Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations, caused the complainant injury warranting compensation, even though the report was circulated 'on a confidential basis'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 13.15, paragraph 9, of the Staff Regulations
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; communication to third party; compensation; confidential evidence; harassment; injury; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 2370
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."
Keywords:
claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
Judgment 2356
97th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant claims damages for the injury resulting from the inclusion in her personnel file of a memorandum bearing negative remarks about her performance. "While there is no evidence whatsoever to support the complainant's claim that she was humiliated and that her future career prospects were adversely affected by this memorandum, the fact remains that the Appeals Committee found, and the Director-General accepted, that the document should be removed from her file. That necessarily implies an acceptance by the Organization that it had acted wrongly in putting it there in the first place. This entitles her to a nominal award of moral damages which the Tribunal evaluates at 500 euros."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; breach; career; claim; executive head; general service category; grade; injury; internal appeals body; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; personal file; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
