Delay (111,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 162
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4911
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Arguing that no express decision was taken on her claim of 15 June 2023 within the sixty-day time limit provided for in Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant requests, inter alia, that her medical condition be recognized as service-incurred with all legal effects flowing therefrom.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
date of filing; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
Judgment 4910
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed her third complaint on 23 September 2023, that is to say 113 days after she received notification, on 2 June 2023, of the 11 May 2023 decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
date of filing; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; summary procedure;
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 20
Extract:
[W]hile the complainant takes issue with the slowness with which her challenge to the contested appraisal was examined, her claim for compensation under this head – which is, incidentally, highly perfunctory – must be rejected. The evidence shows that the conciliation and objection procedures lasted, in this case, a total of six months. The Tribunal considers – notwithstanding the detailed observation made above concerning the time taken to notify the conciliation report – that this length of time cannot be considered unreasonable in the light of the nature and circumstances of the case.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4886
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deferral of his application for clearance to carry a service weapon.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO be ordered to pay him damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal procedure.
As an exception to what has just been stated, this claim must be examined because international civil servants are, as a matter of principle, entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal bodies within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 3510, consideration 24, or 2116, consideration 11). A failure to comply with this need for expeditious proceedings, where wrongful, warrants compensation, the amount of which, under the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In this case, the delay of nearly four years between the submission of the first internal appeal to the Appeals Board on 3 April 2018 and the adoption of the final decision of 14 March 2022 is, in absolute terms, clearly excessive.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that the complainant, who asked the Appeals Board three times to extend the time limit for filing his submissions, for a total period of nine months, himself caused some of the delay in the procedure, and, moreover, it may seem reasonable, in view of the extensions obtained by the complainant, that they were also granted to the Organization. Moreover, the Organization explains, convincingly in the Tribunal’s view, that the functioning of the Appeals Board was considerably disrupted, in 2020 and 2021, by the successive lockdowns ordered by the French authorities owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, which, in particular, affected the Board’s capacity to hold its hearings as usual. Lastly, it must be pointed out that, given the abandonment of the process of arming security officers following the delivery of the IOS report of October 2018, the complainant’s internal appeals had become moot shortly after their filing, with the result that the procedural delay was not liable to cause him substantial moral injury (see, in this connection, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, and 4635, consideration 8).
This being so, the Tribunal considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there is no reason to order UNESCO to pay compensation to the complainant under that head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635, 4727
Keywords:
burden of proof; delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 2
Extract:
With regard, firstly, to the failure to comply with various time limits during the internal appeals procedure, [...] the Tribunal, while regretting that the Organization does not adhere more closely to the time limits that it has itself established, notes that time limits of this kind are not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. It follows that their non-observance does nottherefore render such decisions unlawful and, where that non-observance is wrongful, it may only entitle the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes actual injury to her or him, which it therefore falls to the staff member concerned to establish (see Judgment 4584, consideration 4). Moreover, the Tribunal has also stated that if the failure of appeal bodies to examine appeals within a reasonable time constitutes a failure to comply with the requirement that internal appeals be processed expeditiously and, consequently, a failing on the part of the organization concerned, nonetheless, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4727, consideration 14, 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, and 4100, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100, 4178, 4584, 4635, 4727
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Insofar as the complaint is directed against the decision of the Director General to dismiss the complainant’s first complaint for moral harassment against Mr P.H. as unfounded, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a) Where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, by forwarding it to the competent internal appeal body for example, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon the claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3715, consideration 4, 3428, consideration 18, and 3146, consideration 12).
(b) Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days from the expiry of the four-month time limit for the Administration to respond to his internal complaint, even if the matter had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes. The present complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable as time-barred under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, combined with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in this case, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was misled by the Organisation when it indicated to him that, since his internal complaint had been referred to the Joint Committee for Disputes, he had, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law on the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute, to await the final decision of the Director General before being able to file a complaint with the Tribunal. By so doing, the Organisation overlooked the fact that, pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, failure by the Director General to respond to an internal complaint within four months from the date on which it was lodged shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. There is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implied decision to reject from the Director General. To rule otherwise would amount to unduly depriving the complainant of his right to refer the matter to the Tribunal solely due to the conduct of the Organisation.
(d) The Tribunal observes that, while the complainant’s failure to comply with the 90-day time limit to file a complaint with the Tribunal is recognized above as admissible due to the fact that he was wrongly informed by the Organisation that he had to await an express decision, the complainant did not wait for this decision to be issued before filing his complaint. The complaint should therefore, in principle, be declared irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress, as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. However, in this case, taking into account the period of one year and seven months that had elapsed between 5 June 2020, when the complainant filed his internal complaint, and 7 February 2022, when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, and the fact that his counsel had followed up, to no avail, with the Director General, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeal procedure that would allow him to proceed directly to it. Under the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant is entitled to file a complaint directly with the Tribunal against the initial decision which she or he intends to challenge where the competent bodies are not able to determine the internal appeal within a reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, provided that she or he has done her or his utmost, to no avail, to accelerate the internal procedure and where the circumstances show that the appeal body was not able to reach a final decision within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 2, 4271, consideration 5, 4268, considerations 10 and 11, 4200, consideration 3, 3558, consideration 9, 2039, consideration 4, or 1486, consideration 11).
(e) In addition, the Tribunal notes that a final decision was ultimately taken by the Director General on 12 May 2022, as was the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes relating thereto, and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete dossier in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on the express decision to reject the complainant’s internal complaint of 5 June 2020, and thus on the decision to reject the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the latter decision of 12 May 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
The present complaint is, accordingly, receivable insofar as it challenges the lawfulness of the Director General’s decision of 12 May 2022 to reject, as unfounded, the first moral harassment complaint directed against Mr P.H. It will therefore be examined from this standpoint by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; express decision; iloat statute; implied decision; impugned decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains that the impugned decision was not notified to him until a little over two weeks after the expiry of the 45-day time limit prescribed in ITU’s Staff Rule 11.1.4.
But the Tribunal has recalled that time limits of this kind are not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. Their non-observance does therefore not render such decisions unlawful and, in applicable cases, only entitles the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes injury to her or him (see Judgment 4584, consideration 4). Since the submissions do not indicate how this delay caused any injury to the complainant, the Tribunal considers that the plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4584
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4686
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a decision to close the harassment complaint she lodged against her former supervisor without carrying out an investigation.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In relation to the delay, WHO has accepted the time taken to consider and dispose of her complaint was excessive and her arguments that it was excessive are unnecessary, if not beside the point. However, it should be pointed out that the characterization of the delay as egregious is fortified by the actual decision made. That is, a decision based on there being no prima facie case. That decision could have been made within a few months, if not weeks, of the filing of the complaint.
Keywords:
delay;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t may […] be accepted that the uncertainty over several years about the fate of [the complainant's] formal harassment complaint also caused her moral injury.
Keywords:
delay; harassment; moral injury;
Judgment 4631
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to treat his participation in a strike as an unauthorised absence and the decision to issue him a reprimand for subsequent unauthorised absences on days when he was likewise participating in strikes.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Much of the argument of the complainant in his pleas appears to proceed on the premise that if there was a legal error attending a decision, or delay in the making of a decision, or delay in the finalisation of an appeal or proceedings in the Tribunal, then, without more, an entitlement to moral damages arises. As noted in another judgment given this session (Judgment 4644, under 7), this premise is incorrect. Moral damages are awarded for moral injury and the complainant bears the burden of proving that injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organisation (see, for example, Judgments 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, and 2471, consideration 5). Delay, of itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages (see, for example, Judgments 4487, consideration 14, 4396, consideration 12, 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). Without attempting to describe, exhaustively, what might constitute moral injury, it includes emotional distress, anxiety, stress, anguish and hardship (see, for example, Judgments 4519, consideration 14, 4156, consideration 6, and 3138, considerations 8 and 14). There is no persuasive evidence of moral injury to the complainant (beyond the moral injury for a threat of the same character as compensated in Judgment 4433 and for which compensation has already been paid to the complainant) in respect of any of the events for which he seeks moral damages caused by the conduct of the EPO, even if unlawful. Specifically, the complainant’s claim for moral damages because of the apparently hypocritical nature (as he alleges) of the EPO’s additional submissions in these proceedings is plainly untenable. Accordingly, his complaints should, insofar as the complainant seeks moral damages, be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2471, 3138, 3778, 4147, 4156, 4157, 4231, 4396, 4433, 4487, 4519, 4644
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4626
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rules introduced with effect from 1 July 2013 governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Much of the argument of the complainant in his pleas concerning moral damages appears to proceed on the premise that if there was a legal error attending a decision, or delay in the making of a decision, or delay in the finalisation of an appeal or proceedings in the Tribunal, then, without more, an entitlement to moral damages arises. As noted in another judgment given this session (Judgment 4644, under 7), this premise is incorrect. Moral damages are awarded for moral injury and the complainant bears the burden of proving that injury and the causal link with the unlawful conduct of the defendant organisation (see, for example, Judgments 4157, consideration 7, 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, and 2471, consideration 5). Delay, of itself, does not entitle a complainant to moral damages (see, for example, Judgments 4487, consideration 14, 4396, consideration 12, 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). Without attempting to describe, exhaustively, what might constitute moral injury, it includes emotional distress, anxiety, stress, anguish and hardship (see, for example, Judgments 4519, consideration 14, 4156, consideration 6, and 3138, considerations 8 and 14). There is no persuasive evidence of moral injury to the complainant (beyond the moral injury for the injurious impact of Circular No. 347 on his right to strike of the same character as compensated in Judgment 4430 and for which compensation has already been paid to the complainant) in respect of any of the events for which he seeks moral damages caused by the conduct of the EPO, even if unlawful. Accordingly, his complaint should, insofar as the complainant seeks moral damages for himself, be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138, 3778, 4147, 4156, 4157, 4231, 4396, 4487, 4519, 4644
Keywords:
delay; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4622
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The unlawful termination of the complainant’s appointment also caused her significant moral injury owing to its intrinsic nature, serious consequences and the breach of her rights that accompanied its adoption. That injury also warrants redress. As the complainant correctly states, the injury was further exacerbated by the length of the administrative procedures, which lasted more than five years from the instigation of the first attempt to terminate her appointment in January 2013 until the adoption of the decision of 9 May 2018, even without taking into account the subsequent internal appeal procedure. The slowness of the procedures, which their complexity, referred to by the Organization, is not sufficient to fully justify, had the effect of unduly placing the complainant in a situation of prolonged, inherently stressful uncertainty regarding the future of her employment with the Organization. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the moral injury will be fairly and entirely redressed by awarding the complainant damages in the amount of 30,000 Swiss francs under this head.
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment 4606
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-recognition of her illness as an occupational illness and requests that her sick leave entitlements be re-credited to her.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that international organizations must respond to requests from their staff members within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3188, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3188
Keywords:
delay; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4600
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illness be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for additional moral damages for “excessive and inexplicable” delay in the ACCC’s determination of her claim is rejected as the complainant has not articulated the adverse effects that delay had upon her (see, for example, Judgment 4493, under 7 and 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4493
Keywords:
delay;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains about what she regards as the excessively long delay in dealing with her internal complaint. While the period of nine months between the submission of the internal complaint that was the subject of the impugned decision and the date on which that decision was delivered undeniably exceeds the period laid down in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulation by five months, and therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, the Tribunal considers that the duration of the procedure cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that duration breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4591
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in the amount of his functional allowance calculated in proportion to the reduction in his working hours.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal considers [...] that the complainant has failed to establish, particularly in view of the small amount of money at stake compared with the amount of his remuneration, that the time taken to issue a decision on his internal complaint caused him any moral damage (see, to the same effect, Judgments 4487, consideration 14, and 4469, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4469, 4487
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
Although it is true that the Staff Regulations do not provide for a specific timeframe within which the process in front of that body should be completed, the Tribunal has consistently held that international organizations have a duty to ensure that internal appeals are conducted with due diligence (see, for example, Judgment 4173, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein). Given that the matter at hand involved the termination, from the complainant’s standpoint, of a fixed-term contract renewed regularly for many years, the Tribunal finds that the whole delay in the internal appeal process of the Appellate Body was excessive and unreasonable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4173
Keywords:
delay;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that [the] final decision was not communicated to him, as required under the combined provisions of Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(i) and Staff Rule 11.1.4, within the time limit of 205 days from the date of submission of his appeal, as it was not communicated until 209 days afterwards. That is factually correct, and it bears noting that the delay was specifically attributable, in this case, to the Secretary-General’s failure to observe the 45-day time limit allowed for him to take a decision on the appeal after receipt of the Appeal Board’s report. However, time limits of this kind are plainly not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. Their non-observance does not therefore render such decisions unlawful and, where that non-observance is wrongful, it may only entitle the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes injury to her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14). In the present case, the evidence does not in any event show that the failure to observe the time limit by just four days caused the complainant identifiable injury.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4553
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover sums which were unduly paid to him as dependent child allowance.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant takes issue with the slowness of the internal appeal procedure, he has not shown in his submissions that he thereby suffered injury warranting higher compensation than the sum of 200 euros already awarded to him under that head in the impugned decision.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he delay itself is not enough to award damages. The complainant bears the burden of proof and he must provide evidence of the injury suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see Judgments 3778, consideration 4, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6). The Tribunal finds that the complainant has not articulated the adverse effects of the delay and supported them with evidence (see Judgments 4493, considerations 7-8, and 4487, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3778, 4487, 4493
Keywords:
burden of proof; causal link; delay;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
