Judgment No. 4741
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; non-renewal of contract; complaint dismissed
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not consider that the Director General’s reply [...] in fact conveyed an administrative decision since it merely informed the complainant of the possible means of redress. Her complaint against that decision is therefore irreceivable.
Indeed, in Judgment 3847, [...] the Tribunal recalled the following [...]:
"The letter of 20 August 2015 [...] merely informed her, correctly, that she had no right to seek to have the decision of 27 May 2015 appealed through the internal process. It did not convey any administrative decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3847
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; administrative decision
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal already recalled in Judgment 1734, consideration 3, with regard to Staff Rule VI 1.02, the very provision on which this dispute turns, emphasising the following:
“VI 1.02 is quite plain. An internal appeal being ruled out, [the complainant] should have thought of filing a complaint against non-renewal. If he could not understand the article on his own, he was free to get advice.”
It follows that, under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, since the complainant did not file her complaint within 90 days of the Organisation’s decision not to renew or extend her fixed-term contract, it is also irreceivable from that standpoint. The Tribunal has recalled on many occasions that, “[w]ith respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions” (see Judgments 4354, consideration 7, 3947, consideration 5, and 3559, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 3559, 3947, 4354
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; time limit; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; ratione temporis; interpretation of rules
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s allegation that she was misled as to the potential exercise of her right of appeal [...] is unfounded. [T]he documents in the file show that the complainant was well aware of the relevant provisions of the Staff Rules.
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6).
Furthermore, it must be noted that the Organisation’s reply [...] came shortly after the complainant’s appeal [...] had been submitted, and that on the date of the reply the complainant was not yet time-barred from bringing the matter before the Tribunal. This may be seen as evidence that the Organisation did not seek to mislead the complainant or lead her into a procedural trap and, on the contrary, duly informed her of her rights at a stage when she could still file a complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673
Keywords
right of appeal; good faith; duty to be informed; ignorance of the rules; duty to know the rules
|
