Direct appeal to Tribunal (85, 25, 779, 780,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Direct appeal to Tribunal
Total judgments found: 145
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 3894
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that there has been an implied decision to reject his internal appeal and he bases his complaint on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent authority for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12). Given that the complainant’s appeal has been referred to the Appeals Committee, he cannot rely on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute in order to file a complaint with the Tribunal on the assumption that his appeal has been implicitly rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3889
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what she considers to be an implied rejection of her internal complaint challenging the “negative consequences” of an amendment to a Rule of Application concerning the terms and conditions governing leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
It must be recalled that the rules governing the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. In particular, the possibility of filing a complaint against an implied rejection is governed solely by the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which states that an official may file such a complaint “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. However, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent advisory appeal body, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of these provisions, which forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681 or 3034).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3819
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3714.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, [of the Statute] was misplaced. Indeed, as the Tribunal recalled in consideration 7, where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3813
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he considers to be an implied decision to reject the internal appeal he filed following the rejection of his request for review of the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent authority for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3738
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]nsofar as the version of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that was in force at the material time did not provide former staff members with internal means of redress, the complainant, who was no longer in the ITU’s employ at the time when the decision […] was taken, is entitled to challenge that decision directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 2892, under 6 to 8, 3139, under 3, or 3178, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3139, 3178
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3737
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he ITU contends that the first complaint is irreceivable to the same extent on the grounds that the complainant, contrary to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, did not exhaust all the internal remedies provided for in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. However, as the Tribunal has previously ruled, these remedies were not open to former ITU officials under the provisions that were in force at the material time (see Judgments 2892, under 6 to 8, 3139, under 3, or 3178, under 5). The complainant was therefore entitled to come directly before the Tribunal and, contrary to the ITU’s submissions, the fact that he nevertheless filed a request for review of the decision of 13 March 2014 did not oblige him to pursue the resulting internal appeal proceedings until their completion, since he had already left the ITU’s employ on the date when he was notified of that decision (see Judgment 2892 cited above and, a contrario, Judgments 3202, under 10, and 3423, under 7b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3139, 3178, 3202, 3423
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal remedies exhausted; status of complainant;
Judgment 3736
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the ITU’s decision to change its medical insurance scheme and to increase their premiums under this insurance scheme.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has already ruled that, under the provisions in force at that time, those means of redress were not open to former ITU staff members (see Judgments 2892, under 6 to 8, 3139, under 3, or 3178, under 5). The complainants could therefore file a complaint directly with the Tribunal and, contrary to the ITU’s assertions, the fact that they had nonetheless initiated internal appeal proceedings did not by any means signify that they had to complete them (see the above-mentioned Judgments 2892 and 3139).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3139, 3178
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3717
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision to reject his request for review of an Administrative Council’s decision introducing a new career system.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent authority for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 3715
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implied decision to reject his appeal challenging the fact that he was not granted a step advancement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law makes it clear that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146, 3428
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Judgment 3714
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the implied decision of the President of the European Patent Office not to accept the findings of the Medical Committee concerning his invalidity.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute relevantly provides that “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it, the person concerned may have recourse to the Tribunal and his complaint shall be receivable in the same manner as a complaint against a final decision”.
The “decision upon [a] claim” to which that provision refers does not necessarily mean the final decision on the claim. Indeed, as the Tribunal has often recalled, where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent advisory appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3552, consideration 2, 3456, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3356, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3356, 3428, 3456, 3552
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Considerations 11-13
Extract:
Where a complaint impugning an implied decision does not fulfil the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute at the time when it is filed, such a deficiency cannot be remedied by simply referring to an express decision taken subsequently to the filing of the complaint. It is only where the initial complaint was receivable under Article VII, paragraph 3, that it can later be viewed as being directed against an express decision taken in the course of the proceedings and on which the parties have been able to comment in their submissions.
The Tribunal has established through its case law that exceptions to the requirement of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute that internal remedies be exhausted will be made only in very limited circumstances, namely where staff regulations provide that the decision in question is not such as to be subject to the internal appeal procedure; where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body; where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure; or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, in particular, Judgments 2912, consideration 6, 3397, consideration 1, and 3505, consideration 1). Moreover, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the above conditions are satisfied, and in this respect it is not enough to simply indicate in the complaint form that she or he impugns an implied rejection.
Furthermore, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may be accepted provided that “a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. 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 1486, under 11, 1674, under 6(b), and 2039, under 4 and 6(b), and the cases cited therein).” (See Judgment 3558, consideration 9.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 1674, 2039, 2912, 3397, 3505, 3558
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 3712
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of the EPO to provide him with the medical opinion prepared by one of the members of the Medical Committee set up to deal with his case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Judgment 3685
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has accepted that, in certain circumstances, the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, to exhaust internal means of redress can be taken to have been met if the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 2939, considerations 9 to 12). This very limited exception to the requirement imposed by the Article is to be determined by reference to the circumstances as they exist at the time the complaint is filed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2939
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t is not sufficient that there has been a failure to proceed with all proper speed and diligence in relation to the internal appeal. It is only if the proceedings have been so protracted that the delay is inordinate, unexplained and inexcusable that a complainant can proceed directly to the Tribunal (see Judgment 1486, consideration 11). [...] Moreover what is relevant is not only the delay between the time the internal appeal was commenced and the filing of a complaint with the Tribunal but also the further delay which was reasonably anticipated (see Judgment 1486, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3679
122nd Session, 2016
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the absence of available internal appeal proceedings an official may bring his complaint directly to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2312, considerations 3 and 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2312
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3672
122nd Session, 2016
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his extended trial period.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Article VII presupposes that the complainant has gone through the internal appeal procedure and has not received a final decision within a reasonable time despite doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, or that the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3646
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General not to allow him to proceed directly to the Tribunal in respect of his appeal against WIPO’s alleged failure to ensure that he was not subjected to intimidation, offensive behaviour or aggression.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Situations can arise where the Tribunal entertains and adjudicates on a complaint where the complainant has not exhausted internal remedies but it is apparent that the internal appeal process has paralysed the exercise of the complainant’s rights (see, for example, Judgment 2039, consideration 4). However, mere dissatisfaction with the composition of the internal appeal body does not found a right to bring a complaint directly to the Tribunal (see Judgment 3190, consideration 9). Nothing advanced by the complainant establishes that he is entitled to bring his grievance directly to the Tribunal. It is true that his grievance, in the most general sense, has subsisted for many years and has already twice been considered by the Tribunal. But that fact does not absolve the complainant from satisfying the requirement in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute that the impugned decision is a final decision and that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2039, 3190
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3561
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he condition that internal means of redress must be exhausted would in any case not apply in respect of compensation for damage related to the length of proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 2744, under 6, and 3429, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2744, 3429
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury;
Judgment 3558
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The clear and consistent authority of the Tribunal is that a complaint filed directly with the Tribunal is irreceivable unless a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. 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 1486, under 11, 1674, under 6(b), and 2039, under 4 and 6(b), and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 1674, 2039
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3554
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust internal remedies.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Referring to its case law, the Tribunal emphasised that a complainant cannot claim to have exhausted the internal means of redress simply because he or she has sent an ultimatum to the decision-making authority to no avail
(see Judgment 3302, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3302
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3552
120th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of a claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 3456, under 4, and 2948, under 7). While it is clear from the case law that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of a complainant’s rights (see, Judgment 2039, under 4), a complainant will be exempted from that requirement only where she or he has done her or 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). The content of the present complaint does not show any efforts of the complainant to obtain the necessary final decision. Consequently, his complaint is clearly irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1970, 2039, 2948, 3456
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3505
120th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her sick leave entitlement beyond the date on which her appointment expired.
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, when under an organisation’s Staff Rules and Staff Regulations only serving staff members have access to the internal appeal procedures, former officials have no possibility of using them and they are then entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2840, under 21, 3074, under 13, or 3156, under 9). [...]
However […], as the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3398 under 2 and 6, the internal means of redress established by the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules are open to any person who has been affected by a decision in his or her capacity as an official, even if he or she has since left the Organization. A staff member of UNESCO whose appointment has ended is therefore still entitled to use the internal means of redress if he or she wishes to challenge a decision taken before his or her separation. It must be noted that, although in such a case this rule will also have the effect of depriving the former staff member of the possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal, it provides that person with the essential safeguard constituted by the right of officials to pursue an internal appeal against any decision harming their interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 3074, 3156, 3398
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; former official;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
