Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 455
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
Judgment 2458
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189
Keywords:
application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 2440
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
If a staff member withdraws some of his/her claims during the internal appeal procedure, he/she cannot raise them before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; tribunal;
Judgment 2424
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
Judgment 2417
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416
Keywords:
claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;
Judgment 2416
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8 and 11
Extract:
"The EPO's position is that because the claim for damages was made as an oral submission during the [Appeals] Committee hearings [...], rather than being included in the complainant's original written submissions, it was not actually part of the internal appeal and therefore cannot now be claimed before the Tribunal. [...]
The objection to receivability is misconceived. The Appeals Committee accepted that the complainant could make a claim for damages and heard both parties on the question. The reason that the Tribunal insists that any claim made before it must first have been asserted in the internal appeal process is that Article VII(1) of its Statute demands that the complainant first exhaust any available internal means of redress. The EPO has not shown that there is any equivalent provision relating to internal appeals, and it is desirable that such appeals should be as unencumbered as possible by procedural obstacles provided that elementary fairness is observed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; claim; equity; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; moral injury; new claim; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2370
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."
Keywords:
claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
Judgment 2360
97th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Organization considers that the claims for compensation for certain heads of injury were not submitted during the internal appeal proceedings and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. "[T]he claims to compensation for moral injury and for breach of the complainant's rights were put forward in the internal appeal, though in a different form, and are certainly receivable, even though some heads of injury, concerning the complainant's state of health in particular, had not been enlarged upon, since the complainant had stated in his appeal [...] that the decision he contested caused him 'undoubted material and moral injury'."
Keywords:
breach; claim; compensation; decision; difference; formal requirements; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material injury; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2339
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement that where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated. ([...] see Judgments 2092, 2261 [...], 2347 and 2355.) It is not enough for the decision maker - in this case the President of the Office - simply to state that he is not convinced by the recommendation or to refer in general terms to the arguments presented by the Administration before the appeal body. Such statements do not adequately inform either the employee or the Tribunal as to the real reasons underlying the impugned decision. Nor do they show that the decision maker has properly fulfilled his duty to apply his own mind to the questions raised on the appeal and to give his own reasons for concluding as he has. It is not enough simply to endorse in broad terms all that the Administration, which, like the appellant, is subordinate to the President, has presented before the appeal body. The President is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and he must be, and be seen to be, objective and impartial. At the very least, where it is intended to place reliance on arguments which are more fully set forth in some other document, that document must be precisely identified and a copy of the relevant passages should accompany the decision itself and be specifically endorsed as representing the President's own considered opinion which has been reached after the appellant's arguments have been placed before him."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261, 2347, 2355
Keywords:
case law; decision; decision-maker; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; refusal; report;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 28-29
Extract:
The complainant submits that the impugned decision is vitiated by a breach of due process of law, inasmuch as the recommendation of the Personnel Advisory Panel was kept from him. The Commission points out that this recommendation is confidential and, thus, there was no breach of due process. "Should a claim of confidentiality be made, for example, where a recommendation contains immaterial information on a third party, it is for the party making that claim to establish the grounds upon which the claim is based. In such a case, precautions may be taken to maintain confidentiality. In the present case, the Commission provides no grounds for its argument of confidentiality other than the need for the Personnel Advisory Panel to be able freely to discuss relevant matters. In a decision-making process which is subject to internal review and to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; burden of proof; complaint; confidential evidence; decision; formal flaw; freedom of speech; grounds; iloat; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [EMBL] Staff Rules and Regulations do not provide an internal appeal mechanism for a person in the complainant's position. The Tribunal has frequently commented on the desirability and utility of internal appeal procedures which not only make the Tribunal's task easier but also substantially reduce its workload by bringing a satisfactory and less expensive resolution to many disputes at an earlier stage. In any case, the Tribunal remains the ultimate arbiter of the rights of international civil servants and it can, and will, exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat; internal appeal; judicial review; last instance; no provision; official; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; right; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2307
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The investigation of a complaint filed by an international civil servant should not be used subsequently as the basis for an appraisal report, and even less to justify the termination of a contract.
The complainant is, accordingly, right in maintaining that the assessment which led the Reports Board to recommend that her contract should not be extended and the Director-General subsequently to endorse that recommendation, was based on information which should not have been taken into consideration.
Keywords:
internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; performance report; submissions; termination of employment;
Judgment 2306
96th Session, 2004
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks the creation of an Office of the Ombudsman. "So far as concerns the claim [...], the complaint is clearly irreceivable. In this regard, it is sufficient to note that [the] claim was made for the first time in the complaint to the Tribunal and, accordingly, no decision could have been made on that issue prior to the filing of the complaint. More importantly, the claim does not concern the non-observance of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the [Organization], they being the only matters upon which this Tribunal is competent to adjudicate."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; consequence; contract; iloat; internal appeal; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2290
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organisation contends that the internal appeal against a decision not to refund medical costs was not lodged in time. In doing so, it takes as the starting point of the time-limit the insurance representative's statement of account rejecting the request for refund. This "plea [...] is unfounded [...] This is because the insurance representative is not an organ of the Organisation, able to take decisions in the meaning of the Office's Service Regulations for Permanent Employees. Decisions concerning insurance benefits are taken by the Office, and more specifically by its President, in accordance with Article 83 of those Regulations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 83 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
Keywords:
complaint; decision; executive head; health insurance; illness; insurance; internal appeal; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2282
96th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[W]hat is at issue here is a plea of prescription on the part of the [organization], which seeks to take the benefit of the two-year limitation period in [a] staff rule. But prescription cannot be invoked by a party which has by its own actions prevented the timely exercise of the creditor's recourses. That is what the pleadings reveal to be the case here."
Keywords:
internal appeal; organisation's duties; refund; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The integrity of the internal appellate process is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of the international civil service. Like the process before the Tribunal itself, it must be free of any taint of fraud or abuse of power. If mere delay in the completion of an internal appeal is enough to vitiate the process (see Judgments 2072 and 2197), how much more will that be the case where the process is corrupted at its very source by an attempt to keep staff members from exercising their legal rights. The Tribunal asserts unhesitatingly that intimidation or threats of reprisal in such circumstances will be severely sanctioned. Indeed, there is a positive obligation on the part of the administration of every international organisation to assist staff in the exercise of their recourse and to place no obstacle in their way."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2197
Keywords:
abuse of power; delay; due process; hidden disciplinary measure; internal appeal; internal appeals body; lack of consent; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right; submissions;
Judgment 2278
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the titular head of the very administration whose conduct is being called into question, the President of the Office must be scrupulous in the performance of his function as final decision-maker in internal appeals. It is his duty not only to be fair and objective; his conduct must also make it manifest that he has been so. It is not enough to state, as the President appears to do in the impugned decision, that he thinks the administration has put forward the better case. That is not a reason but a conclusion. The internal appellate process is designed and intended to provide fair, satisfactory and rapid resolution of staff grievances in international organisations."
Keywords:
bias; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; internal appeal; organisation's duties; purpose; safeguard;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."
Keywords:
concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
|
