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 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner as the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 21 months, which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability (see Judgment 2841, under 9). Therefore the Tribunal awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2841
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"On the substantive issues raised before the Appeals Committee, as the Administrative Council rejected the only recommendation favourable to the complainants, it was only obliged to give reasons on this point. However, on the question of costs, the Appeals Committee recommended the payment of compensation for the assistance provided by Professor K. H. The Council did not deal with this recommendation. The Organisation argues that rejecting the appeal on the substance meant also rejecting the recommendation as to costs. This argument is dismissed. The Organisation's position is premised on an award of costs to the successful party always following the event. While this is the usual outcome, it is not always the case. In the appropriate circumstances, there is no legal principle that automatically precludes an award of costs to an unsuccessful party. Accordingly, the Council also had to give reasons for not accepting the Appeals Committee's recommendation on this point."
Keywords:
counsel; decision; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recommendation;
Judgment 2866
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4 and 5
Extract:
The complainant challenged the Organisation's decision not to grant her the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 (1) of the Service Regulations. The Tribunal held that she had failed to adduce cogent evidence that she fulfilled the requirements for the granting of the said allowance.
"The EPO argues that although it was outside the time contemplated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, a decision on the complainant's appeal was taken by the President and the appeal was forwarded to the Internal Appeals Committee prior to the complaint being filed. Accordingly, there was no longer an implicit rejection of the complainant's appeal and Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute does not apply. In its view, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 533, under 5, the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the internal means of redress have not been exhausted."
"The EPO's reliance on Judgment 533 is misplaced. In the present case, by the EPO's own admission the decision was not taken within the time provided in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2562, under 6:
"The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...]"
Accordingly, the complaint is receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 533, 2562
Keywords:
administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 86
Extract:
[T]here can be no doubt that the decision of 3 November 2006 was taken in retaliation for her having exercised her right to seek review of the decision of 25 October and for having pursued her claims of harassment. So much is clear both from the Secretary-General’s letter of 3 November 2006 and the submissions filed in WMO’s reply. Retaliation on this basis is no different from retaliation for pursuing an internal appeal which, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 2540, under 27, “is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
abuse of power; exemplary damages; harassment; internal appeal; misuse of authority; retaliation;
Judgment 2853
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
"It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
"[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
"Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It took [...] almost two and a half years before the complainant received the final decision impugned in her complaint. The internal appeal procedure was much too long and consequently the complainant was deprived of her right to a speedy resolution of her grievances (see Judgment 2196, under 9), for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of 1,000 euros."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2196
Keywords:
compensation; delay; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 2848
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 34
Extract:
"[I]n relation to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings, the Tribunal observes that the complainant has been reasonably compensated for this delay with the Director General's award of 8,000 euros."
Keywords:
amount; compensation; delay; internal appeal;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170
Keywords:
amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2841
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
"However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing the internal appeal process only refer to a «staff member» and not to a «former staff member». However, Staff Rule 1240.2, which stipulates the conditions for recourse to the Tribunal, does not refer to a «staff member» but to a «person». [...] This is also consistent with Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, according to which the Tribunal shall be open to an official, even if his employment has ceased."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Statute
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that under the WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules 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. In these circumstances, a former staff member has recourse to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2582 and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2831
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The internal appeal, which the complainant lodged on 27 August 2007 against a decision dated 23 May 2007, was rejected on 18 October 2007 on the grounds that it was time barred. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 18 October 2007.
"In reality the internal appeal was filed within the three-month period laid down by the Staff Regulations. The complainant received the decision of 23 May 2007 on 24 May 2007. The period for lodging an appeal began to run on the next day, i.e. 25 May 2007. It expired on 25 August 2007 which, being a Saturday, was not a working day at WIPO. The time limit for submitting an appeal was therefore extended until the next working day, in other words Monday, 27 August 2007, the date on which the internal appeal was filed.
It follows that the decision of 18 October 2007 that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was irreceivable must be set aside.
Since the complainant succeeds, he shall be awarded 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the injury which he has suffered [...]."
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; saturday; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2829
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
[...]
"The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata;
Judgment 2825
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Because the letter [...] must be construed as meaning that a final decision would only be taken on the complainant's internal appeal after receipt of the opinion of the Internal Appeals Committee, it did not convey a final decision. As Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal's Statute allows only for complaints with respect to final decisions, the complaint is irreceivable. The matter must proceed before the Internal Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2820
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Although the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable, there was an inordinate delay in providing a reply to the appeal within the time limit provided in the Staff Rules or the time in which the Executive Director was supposed to reply. Had these time limits been observed, the matter would not have proceeded beyond the original complaint. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal sets at 1,000 euros [...]."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"In an attempt to show that her complaint is receivable the complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal to the Board of Appeal or Grievance Panel would not have served any practical purpose [...].
The Tribunal will not accept this line of argument, since to do so would be tantamount to allowing a staff member, on his or her own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed.
Apart from the fact that this solution would conflict directly with the terms of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it would belie the actual point of making internal appeals obligatory, which is what justifies this provision. However, as the Tribunal has already emphasised, [...] the purpose of the requirement that internal means of redress be exhausted is not only to ensure that staff members do actually avail themselves of any opportunities they may have within an organisation for obtaining redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal, but also to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a staff member lodges a complaint, to have at its disposal a file supplemented by information from the records of the internal appeal procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. Relying on various Tribunal judgments where complainants were deemed to have exhausted internal means of redress when it transpired that the latter would be inconclusive, she contends that she was likewise in a situation where she was entitled to turn directly to the Tribunal.
"The complainant is mistaken in believing that she may be deemed in this case to have exhausted internal means of redress. The precedents to which she refers [...] refer to cases where, owing to the excessive length of the internal appeal proceedings, or the organisation's wrongful attempts to impede the examination of such an appeal, the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted would have paralysed the complainant's exercise of his or her right to have access to the Tribunal. However, as a general rule, and according to the same line of precedent, this departure from the application of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal will be accepted only where complainants have done all that could reasonably be expected of them to have their internal appeal effectively examined, so that they cannot be said to be in any way responsible for a failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available within an organisation. But, this is not the case here where, on the contrary, the complainant quite simply refrained from filing such an appeal and therefore took it upon herself not to comply with this precondition for filing a complaint with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1829, 1968, 2039
Keywords:
complaint; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to challenge the Director-General's decision before the Headquarters Board of Appeal. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that, bearing in mind the purely advisory nature of this body, the Director-General could have confirmed her initial decision, no matter what recommendation was made to her.
"The fact that the recommendations of the Board of Appeal are not binding on the decision-making authority does not mean that they have no weight in the internal appeals procedure, since the Director-General has a legal duty to give such recommendations due consideration and, according to the Tribunal's case law, can lawfully depart from them only for clear and cogent reasons."
Keywords:
complaint; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 12
Extract:
WHO argues that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant failed to exhaust internal means of redress. The complainant submits that, in this case, an appeal would not have served any practical purpose. She contends that her internal appeal could not be examined with due objectiveness and impartiality and she indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642 that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings.
"Although the complainant indicates that the Tribunal found in Judgment 2642, delivered on 11 July 2007, that the WHO Headquarters Grievance Panel had displayed serious shortcomings, this judgment should not be construed as general criticism of the way such panels operate."
Keywords:
case law; complaint; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2798
106th Session, 2009
International Organisation of Vine and Wine
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
"It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2796
106th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant asks that the defendant provide him with a positive work reference and that information concerning the issues raised in his complaint be given to some delegates.
"None of these matters was the subject of his internal appeals. Accordingly, those claims are irreceivable (see Judgments 899, 1263, 1443 and 2213). Further and save in exceptional cases where an international organisation has a continuing duty to undo damage caused by its own communications to a third party, as in Judgment 2720, the Tribunal is not competent to issue orders of the kind sought (see Judgments 126, 1591 and 2058)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 126, 899, 1263, 1443, 1591, 2058, 2213, 2720
Keywords:
claim; communication to third party; compensation; competence of tribunal; exception; injury; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; organisation's duties; 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 | next >
|
