|
|
 |
|
|
Administrative delay (80,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Administrative delay
Total judgments found: 80
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Insofar as the complaint is directed against the decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant’s first complaint for moral harassment against Mr P.H. as unfounded, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a) 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 of the Tribunal, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days from the expiry of the four-month time limit for the Administration to respond to his internal complaint, even if the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, combined with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in this case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation overlooked the fact that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. There is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implied decision to reject from the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that, while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of one year and seven months that had elapsed between 5 June 2020, when the complainant filed his internal complaint, and 7 February 2022, when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and the fact that his counsel had followed up, to no avail, with the Director General, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeal procedure that would allow him to proceed directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that 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 final decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 12 May 2022, as was the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes relating thereto, and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete dossier in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on the express decision to reject the complainant’s internal complaint of 5 June 2020, and thus on the decision to reject the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the latter decision of 12 May 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
The present complaint is, accordingly, receivable insofar as it challenges the lawfulness of the Director General’s decision of 12 May 2022 to reject, as unfounded, the first moral harassment complaint directed against Mr P.H. It will therefore be examined from this standpoint by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4476
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who claims to be entitled to whistleblower status and requests the protection afforded thereby, challenges the failure to respond to his letter reporting what he considers to be unlawful by particular Court officials.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that the ICC was negligent in failing to provide an explicit response to the complainant’s request to the President of the Assembly of States Parties on 16 March 2017 until a letter was sent to him on 16 June 2017, three months later.
Such a delay cannot, of course, be regarded as unreasonable in absolute terms in respect of the processing of ordinary administrative requests, and it is important to point out that, contrary to what both parties to the dispute appear to consider, exceeding the 60-day period following the notification of a claim to which Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal refers is not in itself unlawful, but merely gives rise to an implied decision rejecting the claim.
However, the Tribunal considers that a request to be granted whistleblower status is inherently urgent and must be examined with particular speed, regardless of its merits, so that the official concerned can receive the protection afforded thereby as quickly as possible should the request prove warranted, or, at the very least, be informed of the decision taken on the matter.
Keywords:
administrative delay; negligence; whistle-blower;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[O]ver one year elapsed between the lodging by the complainant of his psychological harassment complaint and the notification of the decision to close it, which informed him of the outcome of the preliminary investigation. In Judgment 4243, the Tribunal states that harassment cases should be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible (see also Judgment 3660, consideration 7). As the complainant rightly points out in his complaint, the Tribunal has consistently held, inter alia, in Judgments 3692, consideration 18, and 3777, consideration 7, that an organisation has a duty to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into harassment complaints. The Policy of Eurocontrol echoes this. It provides that the Director General will, without delay, set up a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether the internal harassment complaint warrants the convening of the Disciplinary Board; it also provides that this investigation will be performed with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties (paragraph 4.7 of the Guidelines and Procedures to support the Policy). It should be added that the Tribunal emphasises in several judgments that the duty of care requires an allegation of harassment to be investigated promptly (see, for example, Judgments 2636, consideration 28, 3337, considerations 11 and 15, and 3365, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 3337, 3365, 3660, 3692, 3777, 4243
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4470
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns Eurocontrol’s decision to stop payment, as from 1 August 2016, of the education allowance and the dependent child allowance which he was receiving in respect of his daughter.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal fails to see how the timeframe within which the Joint Committee for Disputes met and issued its opinion of itself renders that opinion and the subsequent decision unlawful. Although Article 4 of [...] Office Notice No. 06/11 of 7 March 2011 provides that the Committee should “preferably” give a reasoned opinion within “sixty days subsequent to the receipt of the request for an opinion”, this requirement is not absolute and failure to comply with this timeframe only means that the Director General of Eurocontrol may take his or her decision without receiving the Committee’s opinion. Similarly, the second subparagraph of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency provides, first, that the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision “within four months from the date on which the [internal] complaint was lodged” and, second, that “[i]f at the end of that period no reply to the complaint has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which an appeal may be lodged [with the Tribunal]”. Furthermore, the fact that over one year passed before an express decision was adopted on the complainant’s internal complaint, even if that delay is considered unreasonable, cannot, of itself, have adversely affected his right of effective appeal to the Tribunal: first, he successfully filed this complaint and his entitlements would be fully restored if the Tribunal were to allow it; second, under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, if he had wished, he could have filed a complaint against Eurocontrol’s implicit decision earlier on account of the failure to reply to the internal complaint that he lodged on 18 October 2016.
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal;
Judgment 3429
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but awarded damages to the complainant because of the delay in the appeals procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint allowed; intervention; moral injury; removal expenses;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although the case was complex and detailed, and the subject matter sensitive, the time taken to complete the proceedings was indeed excessive. The Tribunal notes in particular that it took OSDI ten months to bring the investigation to a conclusion following the interviews, and it took the Director General seven months to reject the appeal after receiving the Appeals Committee Report. The total length of the proceedings cannot therefore be considered reasonable, and specifically, the two intervals of time noted above were excessive. The conclusion is that the Organization did not respect the need for expeditious proceedings and violated its duty of care towards the complainant."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904
Keywords:
administrative delay; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3114
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
A year and a half passed following the recommendations before a final decision was reached, and that decision was obtained only after the complainant had lodged an application for execution with the Tribunal. "This delay is manifestly unreasonable. The complainant will be awarded an indemnity, which it is fair to set at 2,000 euros, for the moral injury she has thus been caused."
Keywords:
administrative delay; allowance; application for execution; compensation; decision; internal appeals body; moral injury; reasonable time; recommendation;
Judgment 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
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;
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 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."
Keywords:
administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;
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 2744
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; period; procedure before the tribunal; publication; report; right;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(c)
Extract:
"Generally speaking, serving or retired staff members who turn to an internal appeal body are entitled to have their case heard within a reasonable period of time without having to endure excessive and unjustified delays resulting from the malfunctioning of that body, or from the inadequate resources at its disposal. This duty to take prompt action is reinforced where the dispute is such that it must be resolved rapidly if resolution is to serve any purpose. [...] Contrary to the defendant's view, the complainant therefore had good reason to consider that the lack of a decision within a reasonable time amounted to an implied decision of rejection which he was entitled to challenge before the Tribunal (see Judgments 499 and 791, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499, 791
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; competence of tribunal; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; reasonable time; retirement; right;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
