Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 463
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 4895
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the date of his promotion with retroactive effect and seeks promotion from an earlier date.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes first of all that, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 4743, consideration 13, 3447, consideration 8, and 3023, consideration 11). It is plain from the written submissions in this regard that the complainant had ample opportunity to present his allegations and arguments in writing and that he was informed, by letter of 19 November 2019, that the chairperson of the chamber to which the internal appeal had been referred had decided not to hold a hearing, since the matter could be properly addressed on the basis of the documentation already filed by the complainant with the Committee.
In this case, the right to be heard orally by the Appeals Committee was indeed applicable at the time when the complainant filed his internal appeal on 23 May 2014. However, following the amendments introduced to the Implementing Rule for Articles 106 to 113 of the Service Regulations by Administrative Council decision CA/D 7/17 of 29 June 2017, which entered into force on 1 July 2017, Article 8(1) of the Service Regulations replaced the right to be heard orally with an option for the chairperson or presiding member of the chamber dealing with the appeal to hold a hearing if she or he considers it useful. According to the Tribunal’s case law, any amendment to the procedural rules applicable before an internal appeals body applies directly to cases pending before that body, unless a transitional provision provides otherwise (see, in particular, Judgment 3895, consideration 4). This not being the case in this instance, the chairperson of the chamber concerned, when he ruled on this point on 19 November 2019, correctly applied Article 8 of the aforementioned Service Regulations, in their new version then in force.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3023, 3447, 3895, 4743
Keywords:
applicable law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
applicable law; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; oral proceedings; order; promotion; retroactivity; right to be heard; work appraisal;
Judgment 4847
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her appeal against an implied decision not to compensate her for alleged constructive dismissal.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
Given the centrality of Judgment 532 to the approach of the Appeals Board, it is desirable to discuss what the Tribunal decided. The relevant facts in that matter may be briefly stated. The genesis of the complainant’s grievance was deductions from his salary for periods when he was on strike, which he said had been wrongly deducted. The complainant appealed against the alleged wrongful deduction on 20 June 1981. The appeal was not decided within two months, namely by 20 August 1981, as required by the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office, and the complainant challenged in the Tribunal the implied rejection of his claims in a complaint filed on 17 November 1981. Earlier, on 30 October 1981, the President of the Office wrote to the complainant saying that as his claims were refused, the matter would be passed on to the Appeals Committee.
In Judgment 532, the Tribunal took the view that the letter of 30 October 1981 had two legal consequences. One was that it was a decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s statute. Accordingly, and secondly, there was an express decision on his claim. In those circumstances, the Tribunal said that from 30 October 1981, “the complainant could no longer properly challenge any implied decision”, Article VII, paragraph 3, did not apply and under Article VII, paragraph 1, the complaint was irreceivable because internal means of redress had not been exhausted. The Tribunal accepted that until the President sent his letter of 30 October 1981 the “complainant could have filed a complaint by virtue of Article VII (3)” but said “[i]n any event, since an express decision was taken on 30 October, there has been no question since then of challenging any implied decision”.
[I]t is a persuasive authority and there is an underlying legitimate rationale for requiring a complainant to challenge only an express decision, if made after an implied decision and before the challenge was initiated. It is true that the Tribunal eschews undue formality in relation to process (see Judgments 3845, consideration 4, 3759, consideration 6, and 3592, consideration 3). But by facilitating a challenge to an implied decision in the face of an express decision made before the challenge was initiated, the Tribunal would potentially create a licence for a complainant to challenge the relevant decision (on the assumption that both the implied and express decision deal with the same subject matter) without necessarily having to confront the reasons likely to have been given in the express decision and require the internal appeal body to consider and evaluate those reasons. As the Appeal Board clearly seems to suggest, this would be antithetical to the interests of the internal justice system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 3592, 3759, 3845
Keywords:
express decision; implied decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 21
Extract:
As a result of the procedural flaw in the Appeals Commission’s process, the Tribunal will remit the matter to the Federation for a new consideration of the complainant’s internal appeal by a newly composed Appeals Commission.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; internal procedure;
Considerations 18-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the investigation and disciplinary procedure at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Considerations 13-17
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the selection procedures at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious […] that the Commission interviewed these Federation staff on various issues which touched and concerned “the circumstances in which the offer was rescinded”. This tends to demonstrate that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature, and that it was relating specifically to the rescission of the offer of employment at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] While the Appeals Commission’s report is almost silent about the content of those interviews, its statement that “[…]” tends to demonstrate that the interviews were not about the Federation’s budgetary framework but about the specific situation of the complainant and the decision not to extend his contract. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
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;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant also requests that the Organisation be ordered to pay 11,000 euros for the costs incurred “relating to the harassment proceedings and the internal appeal, on which no action was taken”.
However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, such costs may only be awarded under exceptional circumstances (see, in particular, Judgments 4665, consideration 10, 4644, consideration 3, 4554, consideration 8, 4541, consideration 12, 4348, consideration 8, and 4217, consideration 12). There is nothing in the complainant’s written submissions that would support a finding that such circumstances were present in this case.
Accordingly, that claim must also be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4217, 4348, 4541, 4554, 4644, 4665
Keywords:
costs; costs for internal appeal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The foregoing considerations lead the Tribunal not only to dismiss the organization’s objections to receivability and to find that the impugned decision was unlawful, but also to note that the complainant has been unduly deprived of the benefit of an internal procedure for which provision is made in the Staff Regulations of the South Centre. It should be noted that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, 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 she or he challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body. The Tribunal recalls its statement, in consideration 4 of Judgment 4027, that an internal appeal body’s consideration of an appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notably before the Tribunal.
In the foregoing premises, the case will be remitted to the South Centre for the complainant’s internal appeal to be considered in compliance with Staff Regulation 11.2 and procedures set out in Annex VII cited in consideration 5 of this judgment, unless the case is settled in the meantime.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4027
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Before the Tribunal, the South Centre repeats its contention that the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable, premised mainly on its submission that the notification of intention to appeal was filed out of time and was accordingly time-barred. On the other hand, the complainant states, in his complaint, that by his internal appeal he challenged the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip dated 18 December 2020 and that the Tribunal has accepted that a payslip could be considered as a challengeable decision (see, for example, consideration 2 of Judgment 3833). The complainant states that his internal appeal was filed against the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice within one month of receipt of his last salary and the emails of December 2020 explaining the organisation’s calculation. However, whether or not the complainant had challenged the non-renewal of his contract, as the defendant contends, the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip, or the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice are matters which were to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body, which should have been established pursuant to Staff Regulation 11.2.
Regarding appeals, Staff Regulation 11.2 relevantly states that an ad hoc Appellate Body shall be established by the Board according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex VII to hear and adjudicate on appeals from staff members. As to the procedure for an appeal from an administrative decision, Annex VII.B. requires a staff member wishing to appeal an administrative decision to notify the Board, through the Chairperson, of intent to appeal within one month of the date of receiving notification of the decision in writing. Within one month of receipt of the staff member’s notice of intent to appeal, the Chairperson of the Board is to refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appellate Body, consisting of three of its members, one of whom shall act as Chairperson. The ad hoc Appellate Body shall then receive the staff member’s written appeal, and a written reply thereto by the Chairperson of the Board. The Appellate Body may also hear further observations on, or rebuttals to, the initial written submissions, orally or in writing. It may also call for oral testimony from the parties or witnesses, including from members of the Secretariat, and for supporting documentation. Under Annex VII.C., a decision of the ad hoc Appellate Body may be brought for review to the Tribunal. The expression “appeal” in Annex VII.B is a reference to an appeal whether it is receivable or not. The obligation of the Chairperson is therefore to refer to the ad hoc Appellate Body a matter even if it is arguably not a receivable appeal. Moreover, there is no express provision in the Annex conferring power on the Chairperson to reject an appeal if it is irreceivable.
It is obvious from the foregoing provisions that the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Board erred by responding to the notification of intention to appeal in the way they did, given that they were not empowered to do so under the rules governing appeals. The notification of intention to appeal was to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body which should have been constituted for that purpose and the Chairperson of the Board was required to refer the notification of intention to appeal to that body. As this did not occur, the complainant was denied the benefit and possibility of having the decision he challenged effectively reviewed by the competent internal appeal body, which was his right (see, for example, Judgments 4620, consideration 5, and 3067, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3067, 3833, 4620
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 4811
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, widow and successor of a former consultant for the FAO, who died while on official travel on the Organization’s behalf, impugns the Director-General’s decision dismissing her internal appeal against the decision informing her that the incident leading to her husband’s death had not been recognised as attributable to the performance of official duties and that she therefore was not entitled to claim compensation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal entirely agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Appeals Committee, which the Director-General followed in the impugned decision, and recalls that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations (see, for example, Judgments 4673, consideration 13, 4374, consideration 8, 4184, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8). As the complainant’s appeal of 23 July 2021 was lodged late, the present complaint is clearly irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4374, 4655, 4673
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4781
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 11, 4662, consideration 11, 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6). Accordingly, that official must have the opportunity, insofar as is compatible with the rules of receivability and procedure to which she or he is subject, to freely develop the arguments in support of her or his appeal.
[...]
A provision that gives an appeal body the ability to waive the time limits that normally apply confers on that body discretionary power to be used according to the circumstances of each case. However, in the event of a dispute on the matter, it is for the Tribunal to ensure that the appeal body has not exercised that power improperly (see, for example, Judgment 3267, considerations 3 and 4).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that, given the very particular situation in which the complainant found herself at the material time, the Appeal Board was indeed presented with exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the aforementioned subparagraph (d), which warranted permission being given to the complainant to finalise her appeal outside the time limit, and that the Board was therefore acting improperly in refusing to give her that opportunity, attempting to justify this position by a reference to “normal practice and procedures”, from which it should therefore have departed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 3267, 4408, 4662, 4697
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; exception; internal appeal; right to be heard; time limit;
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
“The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
(See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 8
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 331.4, entitled ‘Appeals by Former Staff Members’, provides that former staff members shall have access to the appeals procedure. FAO Manual paragraph 331.4.1 specifically states that “[f]ormer staff members [...] may lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this Manual Section subject to Manual [paragraphs] 331.4.2 and 331.4.3”.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4764
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
It is true that the [Global Board of Appeal] did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the [Global Board of Appeal] is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; internal appeal; investigation;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Since the complainant was denied due process in the internal appeal and was unlawfully deprived of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process, he will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 15,000 euros.
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; moral damages;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the present case, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information that would enable it to reach an informed decision on the complainant’s harassment complaint. The investigation report before the Tribunal is so heavily redacted that much of the documentation relevant to the allegation of harassment, namely the witness statements, is omitted. […] In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to refer the case back to the Global Fund so that (unless the case is settled in the meantime): (i) the Appeal Board shall carry out a new internal appeal process, in line with due process requirements (including by giving the complainant the opportunity to comment on the investigation report and the evidence gathered, redacted as appropriate to safeguard the interests of third parties, in order to challenge or rectify them); and (ii) the Executive Director shall take a new decision on the Appeal Board’s recommendation.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; due process; internal appeal;
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:
As regards the complainant’s claim for the award of 50,000 euros in moral damages, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law, firstly, that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 4559, consideration 10). Secondly, settled case law also holds that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see Judgment 4178, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4178, 4559
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant cannot validly claim that, in the circumstances of the case, she was misled by the Organisation with regard to exercising her right of appeal. Although the Tribunal’s case law recognises that there are some exceptions to the general principle that the time limits set for internal appeal procedures must be strictly observed where an organisation has misled a staff member, depriving her or him of the possibility of exercising a right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see [...] Judgment 4184, consideration 4), those exceptions are not applicable in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Tribunal also recalled in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time (see also, to the same effect, Judgment 3704, considerations 2 and 3). The rationale for this principle is that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to refuse to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
It is true that in this case the impugned decision does not, strictly speaking, concern a refusal to appoint an official to a post but a refusal to place her on a roster. The question is therefore whether such a refusal adversely affects a staff member in itself or, in other words, whether the fact of not being placed on such a roster is capable of having a legal effect.
The grounds for the impugned decision explicitly state that placement of a staff member on the roster does not confer an advantage in itself, as it does not create an entitlement to be considered for a particular job since any application is considered against the specific terms of assignment.
However, the Tribunal observes that, in urgent and exceptional circumstances, a manager may select a candidate who fulfils all the criteria for the vacant post directly from the roster. It follows that the fact of refusing placement on a roster is capable of producing legal effects and adversely affecting the person concerned, without there being any need to determine in these proceedings whether such a mechanism is compatible with all the other rules and regulations applicable to Interpol staff members. Accordingly, that refusal is a decision open to internal appeal.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Secretary General’s decision to declare the complainant’s internal appeal inadmissible rests on an obvious error of law.
The Tribunal considers that the Secretary General’s decision raises particular concern given that Staff Rule 13.1.3, which allows him to prevent appeals from being considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, involves the fundamental safeguard provided to staff members of exercising the right of appeal against decisions that affect them and that this rule must therefore be applied extremely cautiously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; internal appeal; right of appeal; roster;
Judgment 4618
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law in this area, a decision not to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
While the Secretary General also referred in his decision to the broad discretion enjoyed by an international organisation’s executive head in a selection procedure, that issue, which relates to the review of the merits of decisions taken in this area, has no bearing on the receivability of appeals directed against those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; discretion; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4592
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the amounts transferred into the Eurocontrol scheme in respect of his previously-acquired pension rights and seeks compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the Organisation.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, where the rules applicable to an organisation provide for an internal procedure, that organisation is required to observe and apply those rules under the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see Judgments 4506, consideration 5, and 4310, consideration 9). Given that, in the aforementioned Office Notice No. 06/11, Eurocontrol specifically provides that the Joint Committee for Disputes is tasked with giving advisory opinions on complaints made pursuant to Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, and that, before taking a decision to reject even a part of such a complaint, the Director General must seek the opinion of that committee, Eurocontrol could not, as it in fact did, reject the complainant’s complaints without first receiving that opinion, which, moreover, it had undertaken to obtain in the present case.
By acting as it did, Eurocontrol effectively decided to make its own finding, without the benefit of such an opinion, that the complainant’s complaint was unfounded and void because of what he had signed on 8 January 2019 and because he had not challenged the final decision of 14 January 2019. The Head of Human Resources thereby disregarded an essential safeguard in the right to an internal appeal, from which all officials of the Organisation are entitled to benefit (see Judgment 4167, under 3), thus rendering the impugned decision unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4310, 4506
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; patere legem;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In these circumstances the Tribunal’s case law recognises that it is appropriate to remit the matter to the Organisation to allow the internal appeal procedure to proceed to its conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 4499, consideration 13).
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, “one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of an internal appeal procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately filed, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies. Appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition and their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation” (see Judgment 4168, consideration 2; see also Judgments 4499, consideration 13, 3067, consideration 20, and 2781, consideration 15). There is all the more justification for the input of the internal appeal body in a case such as the present one which involves technical aspects.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 4168, 4499
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeal; patere legem; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s settled case law states that an appeal submitted to the wrong authority within the prescribed time limit is not irreceivable on that account, because it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the authority which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 2017, consideration 6, 2345, consideration 1(b), 2882, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, 3423, consideration 9(b), 3424, consideration 8(b), 3425, consideration 7, and 3595, consideration 10). In such a situation, it is therefore not sufficient for the incompetent authority merely to inform the complainant that it is not competent and to suggest that she or he apply to the competent authority (see Judgment 3595, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2017, 2345, 2882, 3027, 3423, 3424, 3425, 3595
Keywords:
duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
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 >
|
