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 2903
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 to 11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
"The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
"In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
"Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reasonable time; reorganisation; time limit;
Judgment 2901
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As the Tribunal recently confirmed in Judgment 2781, under 15, the 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2891
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that UNIDO failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well-established case law, the Organization has a duty to maintain a fully functional internal appeals body. Further, "[s]ince compliance with internal appeal 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 complainant's appeal was filed on 10 September 2004 and the Director-General's decision to endorse the appeal in part was dated 11 March 2008. This represents a significant and unacceptable delay of approximately 42 months. This delay entitles the complainant to moral damages. However, having regard to the reason for the delay (mainly obstacles in the appeal procedure) and considering the Organization's subsequent steps to rectify the situation, the Tribunal does not consider that the delay warrants an award of exemplary damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; material damages;
Judgment 2887
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following the adoption by UNESCO of new classification standards, the complainant sought reclassification of her post. The Job Evaluation Committee and a desk audit confirmed that her post was appropriately classified at grade G-6. The Director-General endorsed that grading. The complainant seized the Tribunal but her complaint was dismissed as irreceivable.
"The complainant's arguments as to the date of the final decision dismissing her internal appeal must be rejected. The letter of 17 October 2007 clearly indicated that the results of the desk audit would be communicated to the complainant together with the final decision. In that context, the letter of 19 December 2007 informing her of those results and of the Director-General's decision that no compensation would be granted and that her post would be maintained at grade G-6 could only be construed as a final decision with respect to her internal appeal. Although it would have been preferable if the letter of 19 December 2007 had expressly stated that it was a final decision and indicated that it could only be challenged by a complaint filed with the Tribunal, the subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 still allowed the complainant sufficient time within which to file a complaint."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2882
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832
Keywords:
breach; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner as the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 21 months, which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability (see Judgment 2841, under 9). Therefore the Tribunal awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2841
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"On the substantive issues raised before the Appeals Committee, as the Administrative Council rejected the only recommendation favourable to the complainants, it was only obliged to give reasons on this point. However, on the question of costs, the Appeals Committee recommended the payment of compensation for the assistance provided by Professor K. H. The Council did not deal with this recommendation. The Organisation argues that rejecting the appeal on the substance meant also rejecting the recommendation as to costs. This argument is dismissed. The Organisation's position is premised on an award of costs to the successful party always following the event. While this is the usual outcome, it is not always the case. In the appropriate circumstances, there is no legal principle that automatically precludes an award of costs to an unsuccessful party. Accordingly, the Council also had to give reasons for not accepting the Appeals Committee's recommendation on this point."
Keywords:
counsel; decision; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2866
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4 and 5
Extract:
The complainant challenged the Organisation's decision not to grant her the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 (1) of the Service Regulations. The Tribunal held that she had failed to adduce cogent evidence that she fulfilled the requirements for the granting of the said allowance.
"The EPO argues that although it was outside the time contemplated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, a decision on the complainant's appeal was taken by the President and the appeal was forwarded to the Internal Appeals Committee prior to the complaint being filed. Accordingly, there was no longer an implicit rejection of the complainant's appeal and Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute does not apply. In its view, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 533, under 5, the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the internal means of redress have not been exhausted."
"The EPO's reliance on Judgment 533 is misplaced. In the present case, by the EPO's own admission the decision was not taken within the time provided in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2562, under 6:
"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). [...]"
Accordingly, the complaint is receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 533, 2562
Keywords:
administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 86
Extract:
[T]here can be no doubt that the decision of 3 November 2006 was taken in retaliation for her having exercised her right to seek review of the decision of 25 October and for having pursued her claims of harassment. So much is clear both from the Secretary-General’s letter of 3 November 2006 and the submissions filed in WMO’s reply. Retaliation on this basis is no different from retaliation for pursuing an internal appeal which, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 2540, under 27, “is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
abuse of power; exemplary damages; harassment; internal appeal; misuse of authority; retaliation;
Judgment 2853
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
"It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
"[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
"Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It took [...] almost two and a half years before the complainant received the final decision impugned in her complaint. The internal appeal procedure was much too long and consequently the complainant was deprived of her right to a speedy resolution of her grievances (see Judgment 2196, under 9), for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of 1,000 euros."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2196
Keywords:
compensation; delay; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 34
Extract:
"[I]n relation to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings, the Tribunal observes that the complainant has been reasonably compensated for this delay with the Director General's award of 8,000 euros."
Keywords:
amount; compensation; delay; internal appeal;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170
Keywords:
amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2841
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
"However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal 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). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing the internal appeal process only refer to a «staff member» and not to a «former staff member». However, Staff Rule 1240.2, which stipulates the conditions for recourse to the Tribunal, does not refer to a «staff member» but to a «person». [...] This is also consistent with Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, according to which the Tribunal shall be open to an official, even if his employment has ceased."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Statute
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that under the WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process. In these circumstances, a former staff member has recourse to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2582 and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
< 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 >
|
