Procedure before the Tribunal (1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882, 52, 53, 54, 56, 55, 71, 73, 74, 673, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 643, 682, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 93, 534, 535, 659, 655, 704, 705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 760, 889, 758, 759, 70, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749, 83, 935, 936, 972, 85, 25, 779, 780, 100, 102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948, 120, 22, 23, 121, 122, 123, 690, 871, 124, 125, 126, 842, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 127, 133, 134, 745, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 672, 825, 826, 140, 315, 644, 650, 676, 689, 692, 693, 665, 740, 886, 914, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 158, 166, 167, 633, 795, 796, 707, 797, 798, 799, 168, 792, 169, 170, 171, 172, 674, 800, 117, 173, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 174, 793, 762, 593, 888, 761, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 21, 794, 801, 884, 916, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Procedure before the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 193
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In challenging the impugned decision, the complainant refers to statements, submissions and/or arguments and explanations he submitted in the internal appeal procedure, attempting to incorporate by reference his pleadings in that procedure into the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal will not take them into consideration in this judgment. The case law makes it clear that it is not acceptable to incorporate by reference into the pleadings before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in documents created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see Judgment 4014, consideration 7, and the judgments cited therein). The Tribunal has also stated, in Judgment 2264, consideration 3(e), also referred to in Judgment 3434, consideration 5, for example, that this manner of proceeding is contrary to Article 6(1)(b) of its Rules and makes it impossible for it (the Tribunal) and the other party to understand the complainant’s pleas with sufficient ease and clarity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264, 3434, 4014
Keywords:
procedure before the tribunal; submissions; writing style of submissions;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral et demande réparation pour le préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la question de savoir si l’on se trouve en présence d’un cas de harcèlement se résout à la lumière d’un examen rigoureux de toutes les circonstances objectives ayant entouré les actes dénoncés (voir, notamment, le jugement 4471, au considérant 18) et l’accusation de harcèlement doit être corroborée par des faits précis dont la preuve incombe à celui qui affirme en avoir été victime, étant entendu qu’il n’a pas à démontrer que la personne accusée aurait agi intentionnellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4344, au considérant 3, 3871, au considérant 12, et 3692, au considérant 18). Lorsqu’une procédure spécifique est prévue par l’organisation concernée, elle doit être suivie et les règles doivent être correctement appliquées. Le Tribunal a également considéré que l’enquête doit être objective, rigoureuse et approfondie, en ce sens qu’elle doit être menée d’une manière permettant de s’enquérir de tous les faits pertinents sans pour autant compromettre la réputation de la personne mise en cause et en donnant à ce dernier la possibilité de vérifier les preuves avancées à son encontre et de répondre aux accusations formulées (voir, notamment, les jugements 4663, aux considérants 10 à 13, 4253, au considérant 3, 3314, au considérant 14, et 2771, au considérant 15). Il est toutefois entendu qu’un fonctionnaire qui affirme être ou avoir été victime de harcèlement n’a pas besoin de démontrer, pas plus que la personne ou l’organe chargé(e) d’évaluer la plainte, que les faits permettent d’établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable le caractère effectif du harcèlement (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4663, au considérant 12, et 4289, au considérant 10). L’élément essentiel dans la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement est en effet la perception que la personne concernée peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos qui sont propres à la dévaloriser ou à l’humilier (voir les jugements 4663, au considérant 13, et 4541, au considérant 8).
Le Tribunal rappelle par ailleurs qu’il ne lui appartient pas de réévaluer les preuves dont dispose l’organe chargé d’enquêter, qui, en sa qualité de première instance d’examen des faits, a eu l’avantage de rencontrer et d’entendre directement la plupart des personnes concernées et d’évaluer la fiabilité de leurs déclarations (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4291, au considérant 12, et 3593, au considérant 12). Il n’interviendra en conséquence qu’en cas d’erreur manifeste (voir, notamment, les jugements 4344, au considérant 8, 4091, au considérant 17, et 3597, au considérant 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
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 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that it is unnecessary to pay the complainant, as she requests, further compensation on account of the Organization’s alleged abusive and harassing tone in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
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 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that it is unnecessary to pay the complainant, as she requests, further compensation on account of the Organization’s allegedly unreasonable and harassing tone in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant further seeks the setting aside of the decision by the President of the Tribunal to stay the proceedings temporarily with a view to allowing the terms of an amicable settlement to be discussed.
However, no appeal lies from procedural decisions taken by the President of the Tribunal or by any other authority thereof in exercise of the authority granted to them under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules.
The complainant’s request in her rejoinder must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable.
Keywords:
procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[...] Although it must be taken into account that the complainant took a month to provide his comments and that HRD asked the investigator to respond to them, which may have taken some time, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
The moral injury thus caused to the complainant will be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3592
121st Session, 2016
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose letter of resignation has not been formally accepted, challenges the decision of the Executive Director of the IOOC requiring him, inter alia, to vacate his office.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; procedure before the tribunal; resignation;
Judgment 3531
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3530
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the EPO’s refusal to award them moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; joinder; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3528
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3527
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to award him moral damages on account of the length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; internal appeal; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3525
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges statements made by the EPO in its surrejoinder to his second complaint which led to Judgment 3146.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3146
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; surrejoinder;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he complainant submits that the investigation took over nine months to complete and that this constitutes an excessive delay. The Tribunal finds that harassment cases in particular should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 2642, under 8). In the present case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that nine months to complete a harassment investigation is by no means excessive considering the length of the grievance itself and the over 300 annexes attached to be considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3432
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s brief (without annexures) in the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises three pages. It is, at times, expressed in inappropriately colourful language. The brief effectively adopts the documented argument of the complainant in the internal appeal (a practice the Tribunal does not approve of) [...].
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 3265
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant having been allowed to contribute again at the full rate to the pension scheme, the Tribunal need not rule on his complaint seeking the cancellation of the decision to lower the contribution rate.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that the complainant, who was obliged to initiate judicial proceedings in order to obtain the cancellation of a decision which the Agency thereafter admitted was unlawful, may at all events legitimately claim an award of costs. As far as determining their amount is concerned, it must, however, be observed, on the one hand, that the proceedings in question were considerably simplified through the rapid withdrawal of the impugned decision and, on the other, that the submission of applications to intervene does not, in itself, give rise to entitlement to an award of costs. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it fair to award the complainant 3,000 euros in costs [...]."
Keywords:
costs; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
