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 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;
Judgment 3206
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; competition; flaw; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although the case was complex and detailed, and the subject matter sensitive, the time taken to complete the proceedings was indeed excessive. The Tribunal notes in particular that it took OSDI ten months to bring the investigation to a conclusion following the interviews, and it took the Director General seven months to reject the appeal after receiving the Appeals Committee Report. The total length of the proceedings cannot therefore be considered reasonable, and specifically, the two intervals of time noted above were excessive. The conclusion is that the Organization did not respect the need for expeditious proceedings and violated its duty of care towards the complainant."
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3190
114th Session, 2013
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract, failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[The complainant's] assertion that she did not file an appeal before the Centre’s ad hoc Appellate Body because it could not be considered to be independent and impartial must be rejected. It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgment 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). The complaint is therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 25
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly observed, internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see for example Judgment 2522, under 7). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will often depend on the particular circumstances of a given case, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902, under 16, that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3184
114th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him without pay, alleging that it was taken in breach of the rule against double jeopardy.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires that “the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904
Keywords:
administrative delay; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255
Keywords:
estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3158
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 3139
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Union regrets that the internal appeal procedure [...] was not completed, but it raises no objection to receivability on that account.
The Tribunal automatically examines the receivability of complaints filed with it. [...]. In Judgment 2892, the Tribunal held that the provisions of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing internal appeals did not provide for appeals by former staff members. In such circumstances, where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process (see for example Judgment 2840, under 21). Hence the Tribunal will not find that the complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2840, 2892
Keywords:
former official; iloat statute; internal appeal; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3128
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."
Keywords:
breach; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on that point Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that according to the Tribunal’s case law an internal complaint is simply an appeal seeking the quashing or amendment of a decision (see Judgment 500, under 3). She also contends that, although the formal rules have to be strictly observed, they must not set traps for staff members defending their rights, or be construed too pedantically, and if staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule (see Judgment 2882, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 500, 2882
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3119
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where the staff regulations of an international organisation do not enable former staff members to avail themselves of the internal means of redress, the organisation cannot legally decide to terminate an appointment without giving the person concerned sufficient time to lodge an internal appeal, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to such an appeal."
Keywords:
condition; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organization argues that the complainant's internal appel was irreceivable, because the issues raised in it were determined by the Tribunal in its judgment on one of his earlier complaints, and that the present complaint is therefore barred by res judicata.
"As explained in Judgment 2316, under 11: "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard." A decision as to the "rights and liabilities of the parties" necessarily involves a judgment on the merits of the case. Where, as here, a complaint is dismissed as irreceivable, there is no judgment on the merits and, thus, no "final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties". Accordingly, the present complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2316
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 3067
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Consequently, save in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on this point, Judgment 2781, under 15)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;
Consideration 21
Extract:
[W]hen it appears that a complainant has been unlawfully denied the benefit of his or her right to an internal appeal, the Tribunal often decides – in some instances on its own initiative – to refer the case back to the organisation rather than examine its merits. A further consideration justifying this solution is that it is, of course, quite possible that a review of the impugned decision by internal appeal bodies will suffice to settle the dispute definitively. The Tribunal has already had occasion to refer cases back to an organisation, with a view to their being submitted to the competent appeal body, in a variety of circumstances similar to those of the instant case. In one case, the executive head of an organisation had not forwarded to the appeal body an appeal which he had misinterpreted (see Judgment 1007); in another, an appeal lodged with the competent body had wrongly been dismissed as being time-barred (see [...] Judgment 2781). This course of action is also frequently taken in cases where, even though a complainant’s internal appeal has been examined by the competent body, the Tribunal finds that this did not occur under satisfactory conditions, because not all the evidence was borne in mind, for example, or because of a procedural flaw, and it is therefore desirable that the matter should be resubmitted to the appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 999, 2341, 2370, 2424 or 2530).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1007, 2341, 2370, 2424, 2530, 2781
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal;
Judgment 3059
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is fundamental to the law governing the relations between a staff member and an international organisation that adverse decisions, including adverse performance reports, must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not, those decisions become final and cannot be reopened."
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 3053
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Where the only body competent to hear an appeal declines jurisdiction, a decision to that effect is a final decision that may properly be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal."
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]s the President of the Office has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Council, her action in referring the appeal addressed to the Council to the Appeals Committee has no legal effect. It follows that the argument that the present complaint is irreceivable on the basis that internal remedies have not been exhausted because proceedings are pending before the Internal Appeals Committee must be rejected."
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Ordinarily, if an internal appeals body wrongly declines jurisdiction, the decision to that effect will be set aside and remitted for further consideration in accordance with the relevant internal appeal procedures."
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 40
Extract:
The Tribunal further notes that there was no time limit for presenting applications under the Office Notice of 27 June 1991. Since their submission was not subject to any express time limit, which would indeed have been fairly nonsensical given that the applications were to be made in order to safeguard a right which might arise at a later date, there was nothing to prevent officials from submitting such applications up until the entry into force [...] of provisions rendering possible the transfer of pension rights acquired with Belgian pension schemes.
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend
their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882
Keywords:
duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
< 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 >
|
