Judgment No. 1172
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the decision was ultra vires and, that being so, there is no time bar. He is mistaken. Lack of authority may be a reason for quashing a decision, but is not a reason for treating it as null and void. Provided that a text purports to be a decision, whoever may have taken it, it is challengeable in accordance with the set procedure."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; decision; competence; time bar; decision-maker
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The conclusion is that in substance [the complainant's] letter [...] amounted to a request for further information and explanation on a matter the parties had been discussing for years. If his intention was to lodge an appeal under Chapter VI of the Staff Rules he ought to have used language more in keeping with that of an appeal. In any event, on receiving CERN's reply [...] he ought to have applied for referral to the Appeals Board, which [...] is not just a formality. Had he applied for such referral the ambiguous wording of his letter might have been treated as just an oversight, and had the organization turned down his claims it might have been held that he had exhausted the internal means of redress as Article VII(1) the Tribunal's Statute required him to do."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: CHAPTER VI OF THE CERN STAFF RULES
Keywords
formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reply; iloat statute; staff regulations and rules; condition
| 
