|
|
 |
|
|
Delay in internal procedure (696,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay in internal procedure
Total judgments found: 90
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4563, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4563
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4796
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant also seeks moral damages for the unreasonable duration of the internal appeal procedure. But the Tribunal notes that nowhere in his submissions does the complainant, who has already been awarded 250 euros to this effect under the impugned decision itself, explain why that sum is insufficient to compensate him for the whole of the injury in question. This claim must, in the circumstances, be dismissed.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant argues in his submissions, the delay of 23 months in reaching a decision on his internal complaint was clearly excessive and it was particularly unreasonable that the Director General did not take a decision until more than 10 months after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued its opinion. As the complainant has not submitted any claim for damages under this head, no specific order will be made. However, the Tribunal wishes to point out to Eurocontrol that such a delay, which it does not convincingly justify in its submissions, is unacceptable.
Keywords:
claim; delay in internal procedure; formal requirements;
Judgment 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect their cases to be examined by the internal appeal bodies within a reasonable time and failure to deal with them expeditiously constitutes misconduct on the part of the organisation concerned (see, for example, aforementioned Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims damages for the length and complexity of the procedures conducted in respect of her compensation claim [...].
However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant has already been awarded compensation of 2,500 Swiss francs for the length of the first procedure in the decision of 19 July 2019 and that the second procedure was conducted within a period of some four months, which cannot be regarded as inordinate in view of the time required for the Committee to undertake a rigorous and thorough examination of the case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant has not established that she has suffered under this head an injury warranting additional compensation [...].
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4700
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges measures reorganising his working time.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for an award of 8,000 euros for the delay in dealing with his internal complaint, the Tribunal notes that this internal complaint was lodged on 16 April 2018 and that the impugned decision is dated 6 June 2019. This period of almost 14 months far exceeds the period laid down by Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, which stipulates that the Director General is to provide his reasoned decision within four months. This therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules and the Tribunal considers the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4635, consideration 8). Although the length of the delay in the present case is significant, the adverse effects of that delay on the complainant are minimal in the circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the injury suffered will be fairly redressed by awarding him 1,000 euros in compensation under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4698
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant also seeks moral damages for the undue delay in the internal appeals procedure. In this regard, he relies in particular on the fact that the Director General’s final decision was not taken within the period of four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged, as prescribed by paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Staff Regulations. However, the Tribunal notes that the appeals procedure lasted eight and a half months, which is not unreasonable, and that, even though the four-month deadline was not observed, the complainant’s submissions do not contain evidence of any particular injury arising from that irregularity. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to award him compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgments 4469, consideration 16, 4401, consideration 10, and 4396, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4401, 4469
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 26
Extract:
it is true that, in his submissions, the complainant provides only succinct arguments to justify the alleged moral injury. Nonetheless, the Tribunal notes, in view of the submissions and evidence on file, that the complainant undoubtedly suffered considerable moral injury as a result of the rather arbitrary way in which he was treated, the infringement of his rights caused by the lack of prior information about the sanction imposed on him and the particularly harsh remarks made about him by the Director General.
Furthermore, the complainant was notified of the Director General’s final decision rejecting his internal complaint on 12 October 2021, more than 16 months after he had lodged his internal complaint on 29 May 2020. The Tribunal considers that this delay, which significantly exceeds the four-month period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, was excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal considers that all of the moral injury suffered may be fairly redressed by awarding the complainant compensation of 25,000 euros.
Keywords:
damages; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n relation to the unreasonable delay in dealing with his internal complaint, to which the complainant refers in his rejoinder, given that the internal complaint was dated 10 July 2018, the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes was dated 29 March 2019 and the Organisation’s express decision rejecting the internal complaint was dated 9 May 2019, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to award the complainant any compensation under this head. Even though it is true that the period that elapsed between the date on which the internal complaint was lodged and the date of the express decision rejecting that complaint exceeded the period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal considers that the delay in question cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. What is more, the complainant has adduced no evidence of any injury that could result from this delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It bears recalling that international civil servants are entitled to expect their cases to be examined by the internal appeals bodies within a reasonable time and failure to deal with them expeditiously constitutes a fault for which the organisation concerned will be held accountable (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In the present case, a period of 22 months elapsed between the complainant filing her detailed appeal before the Appeals Board on 30 October 2017 and the Director-General delivering her final decision on 7 August 2019. That length of time is excessive having regard to the nature and the circumstances of the case in hand. As a result, the complainant has suffered moral injury, which will be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation of 2,000 euros under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4663
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.
Consideration 19
Extract:
It is settled case law that staff members are entitled to have their internal appeals examined with the necessary speed, having regard in particular to the nature of the decision that they wish to challenge (see, for example, Judgments 4457, consideration 29, 4037, consideration 15, or 3160, consideration 16). Moreover, the Tribunal has repeatedly pointed out that the duty of care requires organisations to deal with harassment cases as quickly and efficiently as possible (see, for example, Judgment 4243, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4037, 4243, 4457
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the complainant lodged his internal appeal on 20 August 2018, a period of 18 months had passed when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 27 February 2020. Such a delay must be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances, since the appeal in question concerned the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal without indemnities, that is a decision with serious repercussions for the complainant, and the case therefore merited priority treatment by its very nature. This is particularly true given that in this case the Secretary General departed from the recommendation of the Joint Disciplinary Committee in choosing a more severe sanction and, if only for this reason, the complainant’s appeal could not be considered prima facie as devoid of any substance. Furthermore, although the Organization submits that the delay in examining the complainant’s appeal can be explained in part by the difficulties faced by the Joint Appeals Committee in operating owing to lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal notes that this justification cannot apply to the period prior to 27 February 2020, since the measures referred to were not implemented by the Organization until March 2020.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; disciplinary procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation that may be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4642
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO failed to keep records of his administrative status.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Much of the argument of the complainant in his pleas concerning moral damages appears to proceed on the premise that if there was a legal error attending a decision, or delay in the making of a decision, or delay in the finalisation of an appeal or proceedings in the Tribunal, then, without more, an entitlement to moral damages arises. As noted in another judgment adopted at this session (Judgment 4644, consideration 7), this premise is incorrect. Moral damages are awarded for moral injury and the complainant bears the burden of proving that injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organisation (see, for example, Judgments 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, and 2471, consideration 5). Delay, of itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages (see, for example, Judgments 4487, consideration 14, 4396, consideration 12, 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). Without attempting to describe, exhaustively, what might constitute moral injury, it includes emotional distress, anxiety, stress, anguish and hardship (see, for example, Judgments 4519, consideration 14, 4156, consideration 6, and 3138, considerations 8 and 14). There is no persuasive evidence of moral injury to the complainant in respect of any of the events for which he seeks moral damages caused by the conduct of the EPO, even if unlawful. Accordingly, his complaint should, insofar as the complainant seeks moral damages, be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2471, 3138, 3778, 4147, 4156, 4157, 4231, 4396, 4487, 4519, 4644
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4635
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his internal appeal in which he requested that an expert in occupational diseases be consulted.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]n respect of the claim for compensation owing to the undue length of the internal appeal procedure, which by contrast must be considered in this judgment, the Tribunal recalls that, under its case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In this case, the period of around seven years and nine months between the submission of the internal appeal on 15 April 2011 and the decision on it of 18 January 2019 is, in itself, clearly excessive. However, the Tribunal observes that the injury caused to the complainant by that delay was substantially diminished by the circumstance [...] that his appeal had become moot by November 2015 at the latest. Moreover, the fact that the appeal was directed, as has been stated, against an act which did not in itself adversely affect the complainant also puts into perspective the injury caused by the delay in considering that appeal (see inter alia on this point Judgment 4493, consideration 9). In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal therefore considers that the compensation in the amount of 350 euros that the complainant has already received pursuant to the impugned decision suffices to redress the injury thus caused.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4493
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]lthough it is true that the period of six and a half months between the lodging of the internal complaint that is the subject of the impugned decision and the delivery of that impugned decision exceeds the period provided for in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, which constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, theTribunal considers that the delay cannot be considered unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that period breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4585
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision made concerning the extent of his service-incurred disability, the date until which he should be paid compensation for disability, and the payment of the fees of the medical experts who examined his case.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Regarding the alleged delay in the internal appeal process, […] [t]he Tribunal finds that the length of the internal appeal process was excessive, but the delay was due in part to the difficulties in constituting the Medical Board and in part to the divergent opinions and the submission of supplementary answers by the Medical Board. According to its case law, the Tribunal does not automatically grant moral damages for excessive delay. The complainant must produce evidence of the injury suffered and the causal link between the length of the procedure and the injury (see, for example, Judgment 4493, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the complainant has not proven that he was adversely affected by the delay. Accordingly, his request for moral damages is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4493
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4575
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints concern compensation following the refusal to allow the Central Staff Committee to publish two documents on the EPO’s Intranet.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The Tribunal decides that, although there may have been some inconsistencies regarding this issue in its previous case law, the exclusion of the entitlement of staff representatives to personal financial compensation extends to moral damages resulting from excessive length in the internal appeal proceedings. […]
The complainants lodged their internal appeals only in their capacity as members of the Central Staff Committee. It follows that the injury for the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings was suffered by the Central Staff Committee and the staff representation as a whole, not by the staff representatives individually.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral damages; staff representative;
Judgment 4563
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations: the length of the delay and the effect of the delay (see Judgment 4229, consideration 5). Recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient to award moral damages. It is also required that the complainant articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see Judgment 4396, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4229, 4396
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]s regards moral damages for the undue length of the internal appeal procedure, the Tribunal notes that the complainant has already received an award of 200 euros under this head, pursuant to the impugned decision. The complainant does not establish convincingly in his submissions that he suffered injury warranting a greater amount in redress. This claim will therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
