ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

Site Map \| Contact	français

	> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Delay in internal procedure (696,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Delay in internal procedure
Total judgments found: 96

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >

Judgment 4891

138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.

Consideration 17

Extract:

The Tribunal has long recognized that �international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation� (see Judgments 4655, consideration 21, 3510, consideration 24, and 2116, consideration 11). An organisation is indeed expected to process internal appeals with the requisite promptness and diligence, and it has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgments 4173, consideration 12, and 3755, consideration 15).
Under the Tribunal�s case law, the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay is ordinarily influenced by two considerations, one being the length of the delay and the other the effect of the delay (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 21, and 3160, consideration 17). In Judgment 4799, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that its recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient in itself to award moral damages. The complainant must also articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see also Judgment 4563, consideration 14). Furthermore, the Tribunal has regularly stated that, in terms of damages, a complainant seeking compensation must provide clear evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury, and that she or he bears the burden of proof in this regard (see Judgments 4556, consideration 12, 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5).
However, the complainant has failed to provide any persuasive evidence of the moral injury stemming from the delay notwithstanding it was over five years and was unreasonable.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 3755, 4157, 4158, 4173, 4556, 4563, 4655, 4799

Keywords:

burden of proof; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4890

138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2004-2005.

Consideration 13

Extract:

Turning to the moral damages claimed by the complainant, the Tribunal observes that they are limited to the impact of the undue delay in handling the internal appeal process. [�]
But the Tribunal�s case law has recognized that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay is ordinarily influenced by two considerations, one being the length of the delay and the other the effect of the delay (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 21, and 3160, consideration 17). In Judgment 4799, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that its recent case law holds that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal is not sufficient in itself to award moral damages. The complainant must also articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see also Judgment 4563, consideration 14). Furthermore, the Tribunal has regularly stated that, in terms of damages, a complainant seeking compensation must provide clear evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury, and that she or he bears the burden of proof in this regard (see Judgments 4556, consideration 12, 4158, consideration 4, 4157, consideration 7, and 4156, consideration 5).
The complainant has not discharged this burden in the present case. The evidence of any injury suffered in terms of moral damages or of the detrimental effect of the delay on his situation is barely articulated, if at all, in his submissions. He is therefore not entitled to any compensation in this regard.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4156, 4157, 4158, 4556, 4563, 4655, 4799

Keywords:

burden of proof; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4852

138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.

Consideration 17

Extract:

The complainant seeks moral damages for the delay in the determination of his internal appeal on the footing that the delay was inordinate. It is true that the appeal took a long period to resolve, nineteen months or thereabouts, and the impugned decision was taken five and a half months later. However no moral injury was identified, let alone proved as it must be (see Judgment 4595, consideration 11). Accordingly, moral damages in this respect will not be awarded.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4595

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4851

138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment at the end of the probationary period.

Consideration 13

Extract:

Additionally, the complainant contends that there was inordinate delay in the internal appeal proceedings. [�] While there was delay, its existence alone does not justify the awarding of moral damages. According to the Tribunal�s well-settled case law, 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 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17). As the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove the effect of the delay on her, her plea on the question of delay is therefore also unfounded.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4635

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4844

138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste la d�cision de supprimer son poste.

Consideration 11

Extract:

Enfin, le requ�rant se plaint du fait que la proc�dure de recours interne aurait dur� dix-neuf mois, ce qui serait �totalement excessif� au regard des circonstances de l�esp�ce. [�]
Il convient de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence bien �tablie du Tribunal, d�une part, le caract�re d�raisonnable du d�lai d�examen d�un recours interne doit �tre appr�ci� � la lumi�re des circonstances propres � chaque affaire et, d�autre part, le montant de la r�paration susceptible d��tre accord�e � ce titre d�pendra normalement, en principe, de deux facteurs essentiels, � savoir la dur�e du retard et les cons�quences de celui-ci pour le fonctionnaire concern� (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4727, au consid�rant 14, 4684, au consid�rant 12, 4635, au consid�rant 8, 4173, au consid�rant 12, et 3160, au consid�rant 17).
En l�esp�ce, le Tribunal constate qu�il s�est �coul� un d�lai de dix neuf mois entre le d�p�t du premier recours du requ�rant, [�], et la notification de la d�cision du Secr�taire g�n�ral statuant sur celui-ci [�]. Au regard de la nature de la d�cision contest�e, qui �tait susceptible de mettre en cause le maintien m�me de la relation d�emploi entre le requ�rant et l�Organisation, un tel d�lai doit �tre regard�, dans l�absolu, comme excessif.
Mais, le Tribunal rel�ve � cet �gard que:
� l�Organisation a �tabli que la pand�mie de Covid-19 et les mesures de confinement qui avaient �t� impos�es par les autorit�s fran�aises avaient eu pour effet de substantiellement ralentir, du moins dans un premier temps, l�examen des recours internes par la Commission mixte de recours, laquelle doit, notamment, suivre une proc�dure coll�giale et contradictoire;
� la Commission mixte de recours avait, en cours d�instruction, estim� n�cessaire de r�clamer � l�Organisation des informations suppl�mentaires;
� des �crits additionnels ont �t� communiqu�s par les parties � la Commission en cours de proc�dure;
� l�examen du recours a �t� retard� par divers incidents de proc�dure;
� le Secr�taire g�n�ral, apr�s avoir re�u l�avis de la Commission, a estim� n�cessaire de proc�der � des v�rifications compl�mentaires [�];
� les �l�ments d�information compl�mentaires recueillis ont �t� communiqu�s au requ�rant [�] et un d�lai d�un mois lui a �t� accord� pour r�agir.
Dans ces conditions, le Tribunal estime que le d�lai dans lequel a �t� rendue la d�cision attaqu�e [�] n�est pas de nature � justifier l�attribution d�une indemnit� � ce titre.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4173, 4635, 4684, 4727

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4842

138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: La requ�rante conteste l�application � son traitement de la nouvelle grille de traitements pour 2018.

Consideration 2

Extract:

En ce qui concerne, en premier lieu, le non-respect de divers d�lais de la proc�dure de recours interne [�] le Tribunal, tout en regrettant que l�Organisation ne soit pas plus attentive au respect des d�lais qu�elle a elle-m�me fix�s, observe que des d�lais de cette nature ne sont pas prescrits � peine de nullit� de la d�cision rendue apr�s leur expiration. Il s�ensuit que leur �ventuelle m�connaissance n�entache pas celle-ci d�ill�galit� et peut seulement ouvrir droit � r�paration au profit du fonctionnaire concern� lorsqu�elle pr�sente un caract�re fautif et qu�il en est r�sult� un pr�judice concret pour ce fonctionnaire, qu�il appartient en cons�quence � ce dernier d��tablir (voir le jugement 4584, au consid�rant 4). Le Tribunal a par ailleurs �galement rappel� que, si le d�faut d�examen des recours par les organes de recours dans un d�lai raisonnable constitue un manquement � l�exigence de c�l�rit� de traitement des recours internes et, en cons�quence, une faute � charge de l�organisation dont ces organes rel�vent, il n�en reste pas moins que le montant de la r�paration susceptible d��tre accord�e � ce titre d�pend notamment, en principe, de deux facteurs essentiels, qui sont, d�une part, la dur�e du retard constat� et, d�autre part, les cons�quences de ce retard pour le fonctionnaire int�ress� (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4727, au consid�rant 14, 4635, au consid�rant 8, 4178, au consid�rant 15, et 4100, au consid�rant 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100, 4178, 4584, 4635, 4727

Keywords:

delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4804

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.

Consideration 5

Extract:

The Tribunal�s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4563, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4563

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;
Judgment 4796

137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.

Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant also seeks moral damages for the unreasonable duration of the internal appeal procedure. But the Tribunal notes that nowhere in his submissions does the complainant, who has already been awarded 250 euros to this effect under the impugned decision itself, explain why that sum is insufficient to compensate him for the whole of the injury in question. This claim must, in the circumstances, be dismissed.

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure;
Judgment 4768

137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency�s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

Consideration 16

Extract:

The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant argues in his submissions, the delay of 23 months in reaching a decision on his internal complaint was clearly excessive and it was particularly unreasonable that the Director General did not take a decision until more than 10 months after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued its opinion. As the complainant has not submitted any claim for damages under this head, no specific order will be made. However, the Tribunal wishes to point out to Eurocontrol that such a delay, which it does not convincingly justify in its submissions, is unacceptable.

Keywords:

claim; delay in internal procedure; formal requirements;
Judgment 4727

136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.

Consideration 14

Extract:

[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect their cases to be examined by the internal appeal bodies within a reasonable time and failure to deal with them expeditiously constitutes misconduct on the part of the organisation concerned (see, for example, aforementioned Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal�s case law, 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 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4709

136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.

Consideration 13

Extract:

[T]he complainant claims damages for the length and complexity of the procedures conducted in respect of her compensation claim [...].
However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant has already been awarded compensation of 2,500 Swiss francs for the length of the first procedure in the decision of 19 July 2019 and that the second procedure was conducted within a period of some four months, which cannot be regarded as inordinate in view of the time required for the Committee to undertake a rigorous and thorough examination of the case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant has not established that she has suffered under this head an injury warranting additional compensation [...].

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4700

136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges measures reorganising his working time.

Consideration 7

Extract:

As regards the complainant�s claim for an award of 8,000 euros for the delay in dealing with his internal complaint, the Tribunal notes that this internal complaint was lodged on 16 April 2018 and that the impugned decision is dated 6 June 2019. This period of almost 14 months far exceeds the period laid down by Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, which stipulates that the Director General is to provide his reasoned decision within four months. This therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules and the Tribunal considers the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Tribunal�s settled case law, 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, Judgment 4635, consideration 8). Although the length of the delay in the present case is significant, the adverse effects of that delay on the complainant are minimal in the circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the injury suffered will be fairly redressed by awarding him 1,000 euros in compensation under this head.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4635

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4698

136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.

Consideration 12

Extract:

The complainant also seeks moral damages for the undue delay in the internal appeals procedure. In this regard, he relies in particular on the fact that the Director General�s final decision was not taken within the period of four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged, as prescribed by paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Staff Regulations. However, the Tribunal notes that the appeals procedure lasted eight and a half months, which is not unreasonable, and that, even though the four-month deadline was not observed, the complainant�s submissions do not contain evidence of any particular injury arising from that irregularity. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to award him compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgments 4469, consideration 16, 4401, consideration 10, and 4396, consideration 12).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4401, 4469

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4697

136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General�s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

Consideration 26

Extract:

it is true that, in his submissions, the complainant provides only succinct arguments to justify the alleged moral injury. Nonetheless, the Tribunal notes, in view of the submissions and evidence on file, that the complainant undoubtedly suffered considerable moral injury as a result of the rather arbitrary way in which he was treated, the infringement of his rights caused by the lack of prior information about the sanction imposed on him and the particularly harsh remarks made about him by the Director General.
Furthermore, the complainant was notified of the Director General�s final decision rejecting his internal complaint on 12 October 2021, more than 16 months after he had lodged his internal complaint on 29 May 2020. The Tribunal considers that this delay, which significantly exceeds the four-month period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, was excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal considers that all of the moral injury suffered may be fairly redressed by awarding the complainant compensation of 25,000 euros.

Keywords:

damages; delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4694

136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.

Consideration 13

Extract:

[I]n relation to the unreasonable delay in dealing with his internal complaint, to which the complainant refers in his rejoinder, given that the internal complaint was dated 10 July 2018, the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes was dated 29 March 2019 and the Organisation�s express decision rejecting the internal complaint was dated 9 May 2019, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to award the complainant any compensation under this head. Even though it is true that the period that elapsed between the date on which the internal complaint was lodged and the date of the express decision rejecting that complaint exceeded the period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal considers that the delay in question cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. What is more, the complainant has adduced no evidence of any injury that could result from this delay.

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4684

136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.

Consideration 12

Extract:

It bears recalling that international civil servants are entitled to expect their cases to be examined by the internal appeals bodies within a reasonable time and failure to deal with them expeditiously constitutes a fault for which the organisation concerned will be held accountable (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal�s case law, 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 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
In the present case, a period of 22 months elapsed between the complainant filing her detailed appeal before the Appeals Board on 30 October 2017 and the Director-General delivering her final decision on 7 August 2019. That length of time is excessive having regard to the nature and the circumstances of the case in hand. As a result, the complainant has suffered moral injury, which will be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation of 2,000 euros under this head.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4663

136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.

Consideration 19

Extract:

It is settled case law that staff members are entitled to have their internal appeals examined with the necessary speed, having regard in particular to the nature of the decision that they wish to challenge (see, for example, Judgments 4457, consideration 29, 4037, consideration 15, or 3160, consideration 16). Moreover, the Tribunal has repeatedly pointed out that the duty of care requires organisations to deal with harassment cases as quickly and efficiently as possible (see, for example, Judgment 4243, consideration 24).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4037, 4243, 4457

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4660

136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General�s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.

Consideration 3

Extract:

As the complainant lodged his internal appeal on 20 August 2018, a period of 18 months had passed when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 27 February 2020. Such a delay must be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances, since the appeal in question concerned the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal without indemnities, that is a decision with serious repercussions for the complainant, and the case therefore merited priority treatment by its very nature. This is particularly true given that in this case the Secretary General departed from the recommendation of the Joint Disciplinary Committee in choosing a more severe sanction and, if only for this reason, the complainant�s appeal could not be considered prima facie as devoid of any substance. Furthermore, although the Organization submits that the delay in examining the complainant�s appeal can be explained in part by the difficulties faced by the Joint Appeals Committee in operating owing to lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal notes that this justification cannot apply to the period prior to 27 February 2020, since the measures referred to were not implemented by the Organization until March 2020.

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; disciplinary procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4655

136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.

Consideration 21

Extract:

[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal�s case law, the amount of compensation that may 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 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4642

135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO failed to keep records of his administrative status.

Consideration 9

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 adopted at this session (Judgment 4644, consideration 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 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, be dismissed.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2471, 3138, 3778, 4147, 4156, 4157, 4231, 4396, 4487, 4519, 4644

Keywords:

delay in internal procedure; moral damages; moral injury;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >

Last updated: 13.09.2024

^ top

Delay in internal procedure (696,-666)

Judgment 4891

Consideration 17

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4890

Consideration 13

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4852

Consideration 17

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4851

Consideration 13

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4844

Consideration 11

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4842

Consideration 2

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4804

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4796

Consideration 15

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4768

Consideration 16

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4727

Consideration 14

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4709

Consideration 13

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4700

Consideration 7

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4698

Consideration 12

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4697

Consideration 26

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4694

Consideration 13

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4684

Consideration 12

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4663

Consideration 19

Extract:

Reference(s)