Right of appeal (104,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Right of appeal
Total judgments found: 103
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that, however regrettable, the short time limit granted to the complainant to refer the matter to the Appraisals Committee was not, in this case, such as to breach her rights to an effective appeal or due process (see, as regards the requirements of the case law on this point, Judgment 4795, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4795
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4845
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment following the suppression of his post.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The complainant alleges that there was a breach [...] of his right to an effective internal appeal, insofar that the Secretary General failed to respond to the repeated requests from the Joint Appeals Committee for information about the efforts actually made by the Organization to reassign him.
The Organization does not dispute its lack of response but justifies it by the fact that it was not in a position to supply the missing information requested by the Committee within the timeframe set by the latter owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact thereof on its services. [...]
In the present case, it is clear that the Secretary General breached [the applicable provisions] by failing to respond to the request from the Alternate President of the Committee to provide information by the deadline given to him, even after that deadline was extended. Aside from the fact that it is doubtful that, at the time when the information was requested by the Committee, on 30 September and 13 October 2022, and whereas it is apparent from the written submissions that the Organization was able to send other emails to the Committee during the same period, the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on Interpol’s functioning could, alone, have amounted to “circumstances beyond the Organization’s control”, preventing it from responding to the two requests for information made by the Chairperson of the Committee and thereby constituting a case of force majeure within the meaning of the case law, the Tribunal notesthat, in any event, the Secretary General never responded to the Alternate President of the Committee, if only to allege such a case of force majeure.
It follows that, as a result of the Organization’s conduct in this case, the Joint Appeals Committee was not in a position to give its opinion in full knowledge of the facts. The fact that the Secretary General subsequently attempted to mitigate the lack of response by making his own request [...] for the information which the Committee had asked for clearly does not remedy the irregularity in the procedure followed. It does not change the fact that the Committee was deprived of certain important information which it would have needed in order to provide its opinion in full knowledge of the facts.
It follows that [...] the impugned decision was taken at the end of a procedure in which the complainant’s right to an effective internal appeal was breached.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; right of appeal;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 7
Extract:
According to firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that an internal appeal is lodged by a complainant out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the organisation, which cannot be deemed to be exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
However, there are exceptions to this general principle laid down in the Tribunal’s case law. One of them is the case where the defendant organisation misled the complainant, depriving him of the possibility of exercising his right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 4184, consideration 4, 3704, considerations 2 and 3, 2722, consideration 3, and Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2722, 2888, 3311, 3704, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4655
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The foregoing considerations lead the Tribunal not only to dismiss the organization’s objections to receivability and to find that the impugned decision was unlawful, but also to note that the complainant has been unduly deprived of the benefit of an internal procedure for which provision is made in the Staff Regulations of the South Centre. It should be noted that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, the 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 she or he challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body. The Tribunal recalls its statement, in consideration 4 of Judgment 4027, that an internal appeal body’s consideration of an appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notably before the Tribunal.
In the foregoing premises, the case will be remitted to the South Centre for the complainant’s internal appeal to be considered in compliance with Staff Regulation 11.2 and procedures set out in Annex VII cited in consideration 5 of this judgment, unless the case is settled in the meantime.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4027
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Before the Tribunal, the South Centre repeats its contention that the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable, premised mainly on its submission that the notification of intention to appeal was filed out of time and was accordingly time-barred. On the other hand, the complainant states, in his complaint, that by his internal appeal he challenged the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip dated 18 December 2020 and that the Tribunal has accepted that a payslip could be considered as a challengeable decision (see, for example, consideration 2 of Judgment 3833). The complainant states that his internal appeal was filed against the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice within one month of receipt of his last salary and the emails of December 2020 explaining the organisation’s calculation. However, whether or not the complainant had challenged the non-renewal of his contract, as the defendant contends, the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip, or the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice are matters which were to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body, which should have been established pursuant to Staff Regulation 11.2.
Regarding appeals, Staff Regulation 11.2 relevantly states that an ad hoc Appellate Body shall be established by the Board according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex VII to hear and adjudicate on appeals from staff members. As to the procedure for an appeal from an administrative decision, Annex VII.B. requires a staff member wishing to appeal an administrative decision to notify the Board, through the Chairperson, of intent to appeal within one month of the date of receiving notification of the decision in writing. Within one month of receipt of the staff member’s notice of intent to appeal, the Chairperson of the Board is to refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appellate Body, consisting of three of its members, one of whom shall act as Chairperson. The ad hoc Appellate Body shall then receive the staff member’s written appeal, and a written reply thereto by the Chairperson of the Board. The Appellate Body may also hear further observations on, or rebuttals to, the initial written submissions, orally or in writing. It may also call for oral testimony from the parties or witnesses, including from members of the Secretariat, and for supporting documentation. Under Annex VII.C., a decision of the ad hoc Appellate Body may be brought for review to the Tribunal. The expression “appeal” in Annex VII.B is a reference to an appeal whether it is receivable or not. The obligation of the Chairperson is therefore to refer to the ad hoc Appellate Body a matter even if it is arguably not a receivable appeal. Moreover, there is no express provision in the Annex conferring power on the Chairperson to reject an appeal if it is irreceivable.
It is obvious from the foregoing provisions that the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Board erred by responding to the notification of intention to appeal in the way they did, given that they were not empowered to do so under the rules governing appeals. The notification of intention to appeal was to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body which should have been constituted for that purpose and the Chairperson of the Board was required to refer the notification of intention to appeal to that body. As this did not occur, the complainant was denied the benefit and possibility of having the decision he challenged effectively reviewed by the competent internal appeal body, which was his right (see, for example, Judgments 4620, consideration 5, and 3067, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3067, 3833, 4620
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Whatever the eventual outcome of this dispute, the failure to consider the complainant’s internal appeal has had the effect of delaying its final settlement. That failure alone has caused the complainant moral injury that will be fairly redressed by ordering the organisation to pay him compensation in the amount of 3,000 Swiss francs, as claimed by the complainant. As the complainant succeeds in part, he is entitled to costs, which the Tribunal sets at 3,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
moral injury; right of appeal;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant submits that the time limits prescribed by [...] Communiqué [2/17] for submitting comments on the opinion issued by the chairman of the Board and for lodging an objection to the performance evaluation report are unreasonably short, that is ten days in each case, the Tribunal considers that, while the periods are indeed brief, they are not so to a degree that would breach the principles of the right to effective appeal and the right to due process.
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4748
137th Session, 2024
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The [organization] violated its duty of care by failing to maintain a properly functioning appeal system, in breach of the applicable rules established by Articles 50 and 64 of the Staff Regulations [...]. Denying the complainant the opportunity to exercise his right to an effective internal appeal denied the fundamental safeguards provided by that right. Neither administrative inefficiency nor a lack of resources can excuse this failure. This is particularly important in a case involving the termination of employment, such as the present. If the appeal reveals that the termination decision was flawed, then, if it has been dealt with in a timely way, steps can be taken to reverse the effects of the termination, including reinstating the employee. As time passes, that outcome becomes increasingly difficult, for practical purposes, to achieve.
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; right of appeal;
Judgment 4741
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s allegation that she was misled as to the potential exercise of her right of appeal [...] is unfounded. [T]he documents in the file show that the complainant was well aware of the relevant provisions of the Staff Rules.
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6).
Furthermore, it must be noted that the Organisation’s reply [...] came shortly after the complainant’s appeal [...] had been submitted, and that on the date of the reply the complainant was not yet time-barred from bringing the matter before the Tribunal. This may be seen as evidence that the Organisation did not seek to mislead the complainant or lead her into a procedural trap and, on the contrary, duly informed her of her rights at a stage when she could still file a complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; good faith; ignorance of the rules; right of appeal;
Judgment 4621
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her short-term appointment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 4620
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance assessment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; performance evaluation; rating; right of appeal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant alleges, in particular, a breach of her right to an effective internal appeal on account of the Organization’s failure to act following the submission of her internal appeal.
This plea is well founded. By not dealing with the complainant’s internal appeal, the Organization denied her the opportunity to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal and thereby undermined the fundamental safeguard provided by that right. The impugned decision will therefore be set aside, without there being any need to examine the complainant’s other pleas.
The case will be remitted to Interpol [...].
Keywords:
right of appeal;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to refuse to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
It is true that in this case the impugned decision does not, strictly speaking, concern a refusal to appoint an official to a post but a refusal to place her on a roster. The question is therefore whether such a refusal adversely affects a staff member in itself or, in other words, whether the fact of not being placed on such a roster is capable of having a legal effect.
The grounds for the impugned decision explicitly state that placement of a staff member on the roster does not confer an advantage in itself, as it does not create an entitlement to be considered for a particular job since any application is considered against the specific terms of assignment.
However, the Tribunal observes that, in urgent and exceptional circumstances, a manager may select a candidate who fulfils all the criteria for the vacant post directly from the roster. It follows that the fact of refusing placement on a roster is capable of producing legal effects and adversely affecting the person concerned, without there being any need to determine in these proceedings whether such a mechanism is compatible with all the other rules and regulations applicable to Interpol staff members. Accordingly, that refusal is a decision open to internal appeal.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Secretary General’s decision to declare the complainant’s internal appeal inadmissible rests on an obvious error of law.
The Tribunal considers that the Secretary General’s decision raises particular concern given that Staff Rule 13.1.3, which allows him to prevent appeals from being considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, involves the fundamental safeguard provided to staff members of exercising the right of appeal against decisions that affect them and that this rule must therefore be applied extremely cautiously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; internal appeal; right of appeal; roster;
Judgment 4592
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the amounts transferred into the Eurocontrol scheme in respect of his previously-acquired pension rights and seeks compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the Organisation.
Consideration 17
Extract:
In these circumstances the Tribunal’s case law recognises that it is appropriate to remit the matter to the Organisation to allow the internal appeal procedure to proceed to its conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 4499, consideration 13).
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, “one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of an internal appeal procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately filed, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies. Appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition and their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation” (see Judgment 4168, consideration 2; see also Judgments 4499, consideration 13, 3067, consideration 20, and 2781, consideration 15). There is all the more justification for the input of the internal appeal body in a case such as the present one which involves technical aspects.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 4168, 4499
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; right of appeal;
Judgment 4373
131st Session, 2021
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant raised in the internal appeal the issue of his intention and mens rea. He challenges the adequacy of the reasons of the Director-General in deciding to censure him. […] In the Tribunal’s view, it is an important issue generally and certainly important in this matter. It is not a topic addressed in the report of the Appeals Council whose reasoning is extremely brief and not at all detailed. In substance, the complainant was deprived of his right to an effective internal appeal (see Judgment 4063, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063
Keywords:
right of appeal;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment 4219
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In relation to the challenge to the impugned decision, insofar as the Director-General concluded the complainant had no right of appeal, the following comment can be made. There can be no doubt that there is no general right of appeal available to staff of international organisations deriving, at least impliedly, from their terms of appointment to challenge decisions with which they are aggrieved irrespective of the provisions of applicable staff rules or regulations. However, even if the staff rules or regulations do not provide for an appeal, they cannot preclude the initiation of proceedings in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2312, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2312
Keywords:
competence; right of appeal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant relies on his right to come directly to the Tribunal. [T]hat right exists apart from a provision in the staff rules or regulations concerning the right of appeal.
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; right of appeal;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4081
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; motivation of final decision; right of appeal; right to reply;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Appeals Board did express an opinion on the complainant’s pleas concerning [...], it did not, however, mention the many other pleas of a procedural nature raised by the complainant. [...] Thus, the Appeals Board did not examine all of the complainant’s pleas. In addition, the Director-General did not address those pleas in her decision of 2 August 2016 either. Accordingly, the right of the complainant to an effective internal appeal was denied. The decision impugned is thus unlawful, which justifies it being set aside.
Keywords:
impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the internal appeal body’s consideration of the appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notable before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found in Judgment 3424, under 11, that, “apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). [...] [T]he [a]ppeal body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof.”
In this case, the Appeal Board’s report, consisting of five essential points, does not provide full details of the disputed competition procedures, since the Board merely presents its findings without listing the complainant’s arguments or providing a preliminary discussion allowing its position to be understood. This very succinct report does not enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether the Board considered the disputed competition procedures in sufficient depth. Since the plea of a breach of the right to an effective internal appeal is well founded, the impugned decision must be set aside for that reason, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas concerning the lawfulness of the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2811, 3424
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Principle has it that the right to lodge an internal appeal is not lost if the appeal is sent to the wrong body. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 3027, consideration 7:
“[I]n Judgment 1832, under 6, it was held that a staff member did not lose his right to appeal simply because the appeal was sent to the wrong internal body. It was said in that case: ‘If the staff member appeals in time but makes the wrong choice between Council and President, there is nothing in the rules to prevent correction of the mistake. After all, both Council and President are authorities within one and the same Organisation.’.”
This statement makes it plain that in order to rely on the foregoing principle, the appeal, in whatever form and to whomever addressed, must be lodged in time.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 19
Extract:
To contest the complainant’s assertion of being a “competent and loyal” staff member, the UPU improperly cites the fact that the complainant had filed two previous complaints with the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that staff members have the right to bring complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of their appointment and of the provisions of the Service Regulations, in accordance with the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. International organisations shall not hold the proper exercising of that right against the staff member.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
conduct; right of appeal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
