Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 973, 819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 284
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2072
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The appeal procedure was inordinately long: the case was before the Committee for two years, yet it was not a very difficult one and it needed to be settled promptly [...] In these circumstances, the delay in resolving it amounts to negligence warranting compensation. The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant is entitled to redress, and it sets the amount at 3,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; internal appeals body; misconduct; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; right; submissions;
Judgment 2069
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, whose duty station is The Hague, assisted a colleague at an appeals committee hearing in Berlin, as allowed by the Service Regulations. He asks for an additional day's leave to compensate for the day's leave he had to take to go to Berlin. "Neither the texts cited, nor the defendant's arguments, nor the circumstances of the case afford proper grounds for the assertion that the complainant had to deduct a day from his annual leave in order to assent to his colleague's request for assistance."
Keywords:
annual leave; compensatory leave; duty station; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; written rule;
Judgment 2039
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Precedent says that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies cannot have the effect of paralysing the exercise of the complainants' rights. Complainants may therefore go straight to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to decide on an issue within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances (see Judgments 1829, [...], 1968, [...], and the numerous judgments cited therein). However, a complainant can make use of this possibility only where he has done 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 decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1674, [...] under 6(b), and 1970 [...]). In general, a request for information on the status of the proceedings or the date on which a decision may be expected is enough to demonstrate that the appellant wants the procedure to follow its normal course, and gives grounds for alleging unjustified delay if the authority has not acted with the necessary diligence. However, there are circumstances in which it is unclear whether the procedure has been abandoned or whether the staff member has implicitly consented to the suspension of his appeal in law or in fact. In such cases, the case law says that the staff member must indicate clearly if he wants the procedure to continue. For example, the Tribunal found in one case that a staff member had not met this requirement because an internal appeal he had filed was not referred to the internal appeals body of the organisation, the administration having taken steps to reach an agreed settlement to the dispute. As the staff member had not sought the continuation or renewal of the procedure, it was found that he had not pursued his appeal "diligently" and so did not qualify to file a complaint directly with The tribunal (see Judgment 1970). Similarly, in a case in which the internal appeal had been followed by negotiations in order to reach a settlement, it was found that the staff member was not justified in turning to the Tribunal without first indicating either that the procedure should follow its course in parallel with the negotiations or that it should be taken up again without further ado, and then waiting a reasonable time to see what happened (see Judgment 1674 under 6(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 1829, 1968, 1970
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Receivability falls to be determined at the time that a complaint is filed, not at some later date. As at 29 July 1999 the complainant had done all that could be reasonably expected of him. He had filed his appeal in time. Approximately a year later he wrote to enquire about its progress and had been informed that the administration had done nothing but would move forward as soon as possible. He filed his complaint just over four months later having heard nothing further from the administration. At that time almost twenty months had elapsed since the original challenged decision had been published. The administration's plea that it had a heavy backlog of internal appeals to deal with may be a reason for the inordinate delay, but it is not an excuse. As at 29 July 1999, it was simply not reasonable to expect the complainant to wait any longer to see even the beginning of the end of the internal appeal procedure. If the organisation was overloaded with internal appeals, it was for it to remedy the situation rather than expect the complainant to bear the consequences."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; complaint; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1896
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainants contest the Administrative Council's decision refusing to allow a staff representative on the Appeals Committee which can hear appeals against decisions of the Council. "Decisions of a general thrust relating to the attributions of power can be challenged forthwith, without having to wait until the body, whose composition is contested, delivers an unfavourable individual decision to the appellant".
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; decision; general decision; individual decision; internal appeals body; staff representative;
Judgment 1892
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
By its Judgment 1814 the Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting the complainant's appeal and sent the case back to the organisation. The Tribunal considers that "it was appropriate to resume the procedure by referring the matter back to the Joint Committee for Disputes because it was the unlawful nature of the latter's opinion that led to the quashing of the decision. However, proper execution of the judgment did not necessarily imply recognition that the complainant's appeal was sound: all that was required was a new decision taken after due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1814
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; due process; execution of judgment; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; purport; remand; report;
Judgment 1888
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Both the Regional Board and the Headquarters Board of Appeal made a specific finding that the appeals were receivable, but the Tribunal's case law establishes that notwithstanding such findings it is still open to the organization to submit the question of the receivability of the internal appeal to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 575
Keywords:
case law; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; report; right;
Judgment 1878
87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 31
Extract:
"It is not acceptable that the organization, in defending this complaint, disclaims all responsibility for any alleged shortcomings of the Appeals Board."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply;
Judgment 1832
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1829
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to review [an administrative decision] notwithstanding that the internal appeal procedure has not been completed. The Tribunal's case law has it that where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII(1) will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time. [The Tribunal refers to the case law.] The complainant's internal appeal was received by the organisation on 16 April 1997. Her statement is lengthy and has 24 annexes. Less than a month later the Vice-President completed his initial assessment of her claims and referred the matter to the Appeals Committee. She filed this complaint just over three months later. The Tribunal holds that at the date of filing the present complaint the internal appeal process had not been unreasonably delayed and there was no indication that it was unlikely to come to an end within a reasonable time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1814
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Joint Committee for disputes dealt with the "complaint" by correspondence. The Tribunal considers that the texts provide "that the Committee shall meet', and it meets only if all the full members, or in their absence the alternate members, are present'. On that score alone there was breach of due process and the impugned decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
condition; due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; procedural flaw; report;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Appeals Board asked for and received a legal opinion from the Director of the Legal Division during the appeal. This [...] was a violation of due process because that Director had been a member of the Disciplinary Board, whose recommendation was under appeal. The Agency admits that the Director signed a legal opinion that had been prepared at the request of the Appeals Board. That opinion should not have been given by the Director and should have been rejected by the Appeals Board; the Director simply should not have been involved, in substance or in form, with the Appeals Board's recommendation. A member of the body appealed from may not give legal advice to the body which hears the appeal."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; equity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; report;
Judgment 1745
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The [Organisation] says, quite rightly, that the verbatim record of the Board's hearings does not have the same authority in law as formal minutes. Yet statements made by some witnesses, undoubtedly in good faith, are worth citing."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; good faith; internal appeals body; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the right to be heard before termination, it must of course be respected where there is a proposal to terminate an appointment for disciplinary reasons or for unsatisfactory performance. A reduction-in-force committee does not, however, make findings of that kind but performs very different functions. That is clear from Manual paragraph II.9.340.3, which requires assessment 'essentially' on the basis of appraisal reports and other written records of performance and service."
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; duty to inform; internal appeals body; limits; organisation's duties; personal file; selection board;
Judgment 1706
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As for the special panel set up to deal with allegations of discrimination, neither the Joint Appeals Board nor UNIDO cites any provision of the Staff Rules which compels recourse to that panel. The complainant's failure to put her grievance to it does not make her complaint irreceivable. Where a matter is otherwise within its jurisdiction the Tribunal can and will entertain related allegations of discrimination."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; priority; receivability of the complaint; right; sex discrimination; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Judgment 1700
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
Discretion to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances to warrant waver of the time limits for internal appeal is vested in the Joint Appeals Board. "It is the Board's decision which is relevant, and the question does not arise of substituting the Tribunal's opinion for the Board's. Only if there is some fatal flaw in the Board's decision may the Tribunal intervene."
Keywords:
decision; exception; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; limits; report; time limit;
Judgment 1684
84th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute says that for a complaint to be receivable the internal remedies must have been exhausted. But precedent has it that, if there is delay over the final decision, the requirement will be met provided that the complainant has done everything that might be expected of him to get one but the appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time. [...] The requirement was plainly met in this case. Having done all that he did, to no avail, the complainant could not reasonably be required to wait any longer, there being no grounds for expecting the Appeals Committee to report soon. The organisation's domestic difficulties in running its appeal procedure afforded no excuse for denying him due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time;
Judgment 1674
84th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(B)
Extract:
"Where the decision-making authority tarries over an appeal, the internal procedure must be deemed exhausted when the complainant has done his utmost to get things going yet no decision is likely reasonably soon" (see Judgments 1243, 1404, 1433, 1486 and 1534).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1243, 1404, 1433, 1486, 1534
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; exception; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1660
83rd Session, 1997
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The circumstances of the case are peculiar, the Association having failed to provide the internal means of redress that it ought. So it is hard to see any merit in the Association's objection to the complainants' appealing straight to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
