Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 463
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on that point Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that according to the Tribunal’s case law an internal complaint is simply an appeal seeking the quashing or amendment of a decision (see Judgment 500, under 3). She also contends that, although the formal rules have to be strictly observed, they must not set traps for staff members defending their rights, or be construed too pedantically, and if staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule (see Judgment 2882, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 500, 2882
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3119
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where the staff regulations of an international organisation do not enable former staff members to avail themselves of the internal means of redress, the organisation cannot legally decide to terminate an appointment without giving the person concerned sufficient time to lodge an internal appeal, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to such an appeal."
Keywords:
condition; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organization argues that the complainant's internal appel was irreceivable, because the issues raised in it were determined by the Tribunal in its judgment on one of his earlier complaints, and that the present complaint is therefore barred by res judicata.
"As explained in Judgment 2316, under 11: "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard." A decision as to the "rights and liabilities of the parties" necessarily involves a judgment on the merits of the case. Where, as here, a complaint is dismissed as irreceivable, there is no judgment on the merits and, thus, no "final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties". Accordingly, the present complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2316
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 3067
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Consequently, save in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on this point, Judgment 2781, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Consideration 21
Extract:
[W]hen it appears that a complainant has been unlawfully denied the benefit of his or her right to an internal appeal, the Tribunal often decides – in some instances on its own initiative – to refer the case back to the organisation rather than examine its merits. A further consideration justifying this solution is that it is, of course, quite possible that a review of the impugned decision by internal appeal bodies will suffice to settle the dispute definitively. The Tribunal has already had occasion to refer cases back to an organisation, with a view to their being submitted to the competent appeal body, in a variety of circumstances similar to those of the instant case. In one case, the executive head of an organisation had not forwarded to the appeal body an appeal which he had misinterpreted (see Judgment 1007); in another, an appeal lodged with the competent body had wrongly been dismissed as being time-barred (see [...] Judgment 2781). This course of action is also frequently taken in cases where, even though a complainant’s internal appeal has been examined by the competent body, the Tribunal finds that this did not occur under satisfactory conditions, because not all the evidence was borne in mind, for example, or because of a procedural flaw, and it is therefore desirable that the matter should be resubmitted to the appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 999, 2341, 2370, 2424 or 2530).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1007, 2341, 2370, 2424, 2530, 2781
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal;
Judgment 3059
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is fundamental to the law governing the relations between a staff member and an international organisation that adverse decisions, including adverse performance reports, must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not, those decisions become final and cannot be reopened."
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 3053
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Where the only body competent to hear an appeal declines jurisdiction, a decision to that effect is a final decision that may properly be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]s the President of the Office has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Council, her action in referring the appeal addressed to the Council to the Appeals Committee has no legal effect. It follows that the argument that the present complaint is irreceivable on the basis that internal remedies have not been exhausted because proceedings are pending before the Internal Appeals Committee must be rejected."
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Ordinarily, if an internal appeals body wrongly declines jurisdiction, the decision to that effect will be set aside and remitted for further consideration in accordance with the relevant internal appeal procedures."
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 40
Extract:
The Tribunal further notes that there was no time limit for presenting applications under the Office Notice of 27 June 1991. Since their submission was not subject to any express time limit, which would indeed have been fairly nonsensical given that the applications were to be made in order to safeguard a right which might arise at a later date, there was nothing to prevent officials from submitting such applications up until the entry into force [...] of provisions rendering possible the transfer of pension rights acquired with Belgian pension schemes.
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend
their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882
Keywords:
duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
Judgment 3023
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
"[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complainant; delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to firm precedent, the provisions governing internal appeals will not be applied to a complainant if he or she might have been misled as to the conditions for lodging such an appeal and if they thus set a trap which is liable to catch out someone who is acting in good faith (see, for example, Judgments 1376, under 13, or 1720, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1720
Keywords:
internal appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2994
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Amendment of the rules concerning the health insurance coverage of spouses gainfully employed outside the Office.
"[I]n the absence of a specified procedure or some other provision indicating to the contrary, an internal appeals body necessarily has power to determine what procedure should be followed when multiple appeals are filed with respect to the same issue."
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2991
110th Session, 2011
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]n assessment report can constitute a decision adversely affecting the person concerned and, as such, it may be contested by means of an internal complaint lodged within the time limits established by an organisation's rules and regulations. It may even be impugned in proceedings before the Tribunal after internal means of redress have been exhausted."
Keywords:
cause of action; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report;
Judgment 2966
110th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, if an appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation of that body (see, for example, Judgments 775, under 1, and 2297, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775, 2297
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; time bar;
Judgment 2956
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Secretary of the Board of Appeal informed the complainant that the statement of intention to appeal he had sent to the Board was irreceivable but "this official plainly had no authority to take a decision in place of the Board itself".
Keywords:
abuse of power; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; misuse of authority;
Judgment 2951
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; payslip; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2948
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[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 Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2939
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he complainants ought to have established that their internal appeal had, in fact, been unduly delayed. Instead of so doing, however, the complainants unilaterally ascertained what in their view would constitute unreasonable delay at the time they filed their appeal. [T]hey did not communicate with the Internal Appeals Committee for the purpose of having the appeal expedited and neither did they make any enquiries to ascertain when the Office's first response would be filed."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2904
108th Session, 2010
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14 and 15
Extract:
The complainant claims compensation for the overall delay involved in this matter.
"As for the internal appeal process, the Tribunal recalls that the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Thus, the Committee's statement that 'the alleged delays could not be ascribed to it as they were due to the need for arranging election of new members to the Appeals Committee and the time requirements for this' does not relieve the Organization from responsibility for the delay in the process. According to well-established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeals procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). The first appeal lasted for approximately 16 months, even though it hinged on the simple question of receivability. The entire process to date has stretched over eight years. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to be compensated in the amount of 4,000 euros for this delay."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
|
