Judgment No. 4319
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the designation of his reporting and countersigning officers for a staff report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
performance evaluation; complaint dismissed
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, is misplaced because his “claim” of 30 January 2014 did not, in fact, remain unanswered during the 60-day period provided for in that provision. It was rejected on 20 February 2014. It is clear from the case law (see Judgment 3714, considerations 6 and 7, for example) that Article VII, paragraph 3, is applicable where the Administration does not respond to an initial claim within that period. It does not apply to situations where the Administration does respond to the claim within 60 days.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3714
Keywords
direct appeal to tribunal; implied rejection of internal appeal
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4056, consideration 5, a staff member of an international organisation cannot of her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint with the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4056
Keywords
internal remedies not exhausted
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he “decision” of 23 January 2014 [i.e. the communication concerning his reporting and countersigning officers] which the complainant seeks to challenge was not a challengeable decision. It was a mere step towards what eventually may have become a challengeable decision. The CRU was therefore right to reject it on this ground.
Keywords
step in the procedure
| 
