Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 463
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
Judgment 905
64th Session, 1988
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Under Article VII[1] of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless it challenges a final decision or, under VII[3], an implied one. Since the organisation did not take an express final decision within 60 days of the date on which the complainant notified his claim by letter of 4 June 1987, his claim is receivable under VII[3] in the same manner as one challenging an express final decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 3.2.1 AND 5.3 OF THE CIPEC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 894
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant's appointment ended in 1976. The complainant lodged an internal appeal in 1984. The complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; time bar;
Judgment 887
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"Appeal will lie either against an express decision, described as an 'act adversely affecting' the official, or against rejection inferred from failure to answer a claim. In the latter case, where the decision is implied, the prerequisite is the lodging by the official of a formal appeal with the administration."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 882
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant maintains that the time-limit for lodging an internal appeal should run from the date on which he received the first pay-slip showing his new grading. To support that view he cites Judgment No. 753 of 12 June 1986. In the view of the Tribunal, the complainant "misreads Judgment 753: what the Tribunal held was that payment of salary might be treated as a challengeable decision only when there was no other."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 753
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; formal requirements; internal appeal; payslip; start of time limit; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Since the complainant failed to file his internal appeal in time his complaint is irreceivable. According to Article VII of the Statute a complaint is receivable only if the internal means of redress have been exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 873
63rd Session, 1987
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"What the complainant challenges is a final decision against which he had no internal means of redress within the meaning of Article VII[1] of the Statute of the Tribunal, and he respected the time limit in VII[2]. His complaint is therefore receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; no provision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 872
63rd Session, 1987
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
By virtue of Article LS VI 1.08 of the ESO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules "the Director General may appoint a committee which includes local staff members to advise him on specific cases of disputes and appeals." "The power thus given to the Director General is discretionary. He decided in this case that it was not necessary to appoint a committee to advise him; no reasons have been advanced why his decision should be overruled and it therefore stands unchallenged."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE LS VI 1.08 OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; discretion; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 858
63rd Session, 1987
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was informed on 9 March 1984 of the decision not to extend his sick leave, confirming the date on which he was to be separated. The complainant lodged a protest by letter on 25 July 1984. Although that letter was not in the usual form of an appeal, the organization agreed to treat it as one. The organization's well-meaning offer was expressly turned down by the complainant. His refusal brought an end to contacts between the parties and the complainant never obtained a final decision from the Director-General.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 840
63rd Session, 1987
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Under Article R VI 1.03 of the Staff Regulations of the ESO appeals must be addressed to the Director General [...] Here the complainant contends that the notice of appeal contained in a telex message dated 20 March 1986 addressed to the ESO's legal adviser [who is not an ESO staff member] was a valid notice of appeal against a decision notified to the complainant on 21 February 1986. The argument fails because the language of the rules makes it clear beyond doubt that any appeal against a decision taken on behalf of the ESO must be addressed to the organisation, which alone is competent to judge the matter."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R VI 1.03 OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 775
60th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"If an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body."
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 763
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Even if the decisions appointing the complainants were tainted with a formal flaw [...] the decisions were challengeable under the internal appeals procedure and before the Tribunal. The formal flaws the complainants allege did not suspend the time limits".
Keywords:
appointment; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 752
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Though [the complainant] did rely on facts of which he had been unaware at the outset, there was no new time limit on that account, the time limit in the Service Regulations being objectively determined and unqualified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant or concealed some paper from him so as to do him harm, in breach of the good faith which should govern administration. But the condition is not fulfilled here."
Keywords:
exception; general principle; good faith; internal appeal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 724
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have recourse to the Tribunal where the administration fails to take a decision upon his claim within 60 days of its notification."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 698
57th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is immaterial that there was correspondence after the decision of 24 May. insofar as that correspondence related to the issues decided on 24 May it merely confirmed the decision and set off no new time limit for lodging an internal appeal."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 697
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal will hold the internal means of redress to have been exhausted if the complainant has pursued them with all diligence but without being able within a reasonable period of time to obtain a result. In this case, for the Tribunal to entertain the complaint, the complainant would have to satisfy it that there was no objective prospect of the internal process being concluded within a reasonable time. He has not done so.
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 689
57th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant had been informed in November that his internal appeal had been provisionally rejected and referred to the Appeals Committee. The internal appeal reached the Appeals Committee in January. The Appeals Committee had not had time to render a decision by February, at which time the complaint was lodged. The complainant came before the Tribunal without having exhausted the internal means of redress. The complaint is dismissed.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 685
57th Session, 1985
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to the detriment to himself and his family caused by his assignment to Nepal. So the decision he impugns is the one informing him of his transfer, of which he got notice in March 1981. Since he waited until March 1983 to put his case to the Appeal Board the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
consequence; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 676
56th Session, 1985
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
A staff member may ask the administration for review of a decision either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken or where the staff member is relying on facts or evidence of which he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken. If either condition is fulfilled the administration is under a duty to review, and the new decision will set a new time limit.
Keywords:
case reopened; complainant; condition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 660
56th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In the absence of a provision which says that any decision should mention the procedure for challenging it, the organisation was not bound to indicate in its decision [...] on the internal 'complaint' the possibility of challenging it before the Tribunal. Such information would, however, have been desirable since the distinction between a 'request' and a 'complaint' under [Staff Regulations] is not obvious. in giving such information the organisation would indeed have been following the practice in other organisations."
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; internal appeal; no provision; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Staff Regulations provide for two internal means of redress: a 'request' that the Director General take a decision and a 'complaint' against an act adversely affecting the staff member. As the Tribunal held in Judgment No. 398, any application challenging a decision must be treated as a 'complaint'.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 398
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 659
56th Session, 1985
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 660, consideration 1, paragraph 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 660, consideration 4.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 660
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; internal appeal; no provision; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal;
Judgment 655
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The letter in question, unlike the other letters is headed: "An appeal for [...]"; it is addressed to the Director-General (unlike the others) and it concludes with three claims that are much the same as those before the Tribunal. "It is therefore beyond doubt that [this] letter [...] is the only one to qualify, in form and content, as a [...] 'complaint'". (It is, however, time-barred.)
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | next >
|
