|
|
 |
|
|
Report of the internal appeals body (819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Report of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 32
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4865
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In the present case, the complainant argues that the impugned decision should be set aside because there was a dissenting opinion by a member of the Global Board of Appeal (GBA) who found that there was a breach of the selection procedure, but the Executive Director accepted the opinion of the majority of the GBA without explaining why she rejected the dissenting member’s recommendation. The argument is unfounded. In the case leading to Judgment 2347, the author of the impugned decision did not adequately explain why he rejected the Appeals Board’s recommendations. As a result, the complainant in that case was not in a position to make an informed decision whether or not to have recourse to the Tribunal and of the bases for challenging the impugned decision. In the present case, however, the Director General accepted the conclusions and recommendation of the majority of the GBA, and the reasons on which the majority reached those conclusions were fully explained in its report, thereby enabling the complainant to make the informed decision. This aligns with the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 10 of Judgment 4147 that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself. There is no authority that requires an executive head of an organization having accepted the opinion of the majority of an internal appeal body to motivate or explain the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the minority. Even assuming that there was case law requiring that to be done, on the facts of this case, there was no need for the Executive Director to explain why she rejected the conclusions of the minority. It was clearly implicit in her acceptance of the opinion of the majority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4147
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The role, factual findings and conclusions of an appeal body can assume some significance in proceedings in the Tribunal, particularly in relation to findings of fact. This issue was discussed in Judgment 4488, consideration 7:
“The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).”
It was also discussed in Judgment 3422, consideration 3:
“At this point, it is appropriate to note the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2295, consideration 10, that it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeals board and the conclusions of the board are entitled to considerable deference. While the case leading to Judgment 2295 involved the evaluation of evidence from witnesses about allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour in the workplace, the evaluation by any internal appeal body of matters with which they are likely to be familiar, must be given significant weight as long as the Tribunal is satisfied the appeal body has undertaken a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and the applicable principles and its conclusions are rational and balanced.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 2295, 3400, 3422, 3608, 4407, 4488
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he role and significance of an Appeals Board opinion should be noted. It was discussed in Judgment 4488, consideration 7:
“The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).”
It was also discussed in Judgment 3422, consideration 3:
“At this point, it is appropriate to note the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2295, consideration 10, that it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeals board and the conclusions of the board are entitled to considerable deference. While the case leading to Judgment 2295 involved the evaluation of evidence from witnesses about allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour in the workplace, the evaluation by any internal appeal body of matters with which they are likely to be familiar, must be given significant weight as long as the Tribunal is satisfied the appeal body has undertaken a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and the applicable principles and its conclusions are rational and balanced.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3422, 3608, 4407, 4488
Keywords:
deference; internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4791
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4789
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant’s requests […] to declare the Appraisals Committee’s opinion null and void are irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4721, consideration 7, and 4637, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4637, 4721
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4726
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4725
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request [...] to declare null and void the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4721
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion [...] be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4713
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant’s request that the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016 be declared null and void is irreceivable as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, which the complainant impugns. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4637, consideration 5, and 3171, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4637
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the reasoning on which the [impugned] decision [...] was based constitutes a sufficient response to the various arguments raised by the complainant in his internal complaint [...]. In her decision, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit referred to the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes, explaining that she endorsed the view of the two committee members who considered the internal complaint to be unfounded, and this in itself met the requirements of the case law (see Judgments 4473, considerations 4 and 5, and 4281, consideration 11). In addition, she set out the reasons why she considered that due process had been followed and why any challenge to the medical aspects of matter was now time-barred. This reasoning was sufficient and adequate in view of the complainant’s arguments.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4281, 4473
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is desirable to refer to the role of reports or opinions of internal appeal bodies in the Tribunal’s consideration of issues raised in a complaint. It has been put in a variety of ways, and comparatively recently in Judgment 4644, consideration 5:
“[If the internal appeal body’s opinion] is balanced and considered, [...] its findings and conclusions must be given considerable deference (see, for example, Judgments 4488, consideration 7, 4407, consideration 3, and 3858, consideration 8).”
Indeed, also comparatively recently, the Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
It is true that the Board of Appeal did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the Board of Appeal is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3757, 3858, 4024, 4026, 4091, 4237, 4407, 4488, 4644
Keywords:
evidence; report of the internal appeals body;
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 10
Extract:
[T]he opinion of the Joint Appeals Committee of [...] shows that the Committee did not respond to the complainant’s procedural objections, including those repeated in the complaint before the Tribunal and discussed above. The Committee merely stated in its opinion, without even mentioning these objections, that “the Organization [...] applied the established procedure under the Staff Manual for imposing disciplinary measures, including the establishment of a JDC [Joint Disciplinary Committee]”. Such a brief and generic formulation does not provide any insight into the reasons why the Committee dismissed the objections in question or even make it possible to ascertain whether it actually examined them.
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4637
135th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also seeks an order setting aside the Appraisals Committee’s opinion dated 9 May 2016. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision, impugned by the complainant, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, in respect of the EPO’s Appeals Committee, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the Appeals Committee null and void is irreceivable as the Appeals Committee has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. This is equally true of an opinion of the Appraisals Committee. Established precedent has it that such an advisory opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3171, consideration 13).
It follows that this claim is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4392
Keywords:
impugned decision; receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4615
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Considerations 20 and 23
Extract:
The case law relied upon by the organisation (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18, cited below), correctly interpreted, does not allow exceptions to the necessity of a written record being made available to the concerned official, but only approves of a written record as an alternative to cross-examination or to a verbatim record. Indeed, the Tribunal held in that judgment:
“The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses [...], to object to evidence [...] or to have a verbatim record of the evidence [...] These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out [...] inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...] In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them.”
In the precedent quoted above, the complainant was informed of the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by written records before the decision; in the present case, the complainant acknowledged the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by means of the Advisory Board’s report, not during the proceedings but only when that report was provided to her attached to the termination decision, that is to say at a stage when she could no longer usefully comment on them.
It can be inferred from the quoted case law that two principles must be respected in an adversarial procedure: (i) not only must the oral evidence gathered be recorded in writing, even though not necessarily by a verbatim record; (ii) but also any evidence gathered must be submitted to the person concerned, for her or his comment, before the decision is adopted.
In the present case, the organisation failed to comply with both principles, as there was no written record of Mr B.’s statement and this statement was not disclosed to the complainant before she was notified of the decision endorsing the Advisory Board’s report.
[…]
In light of consideration 20 […], the Advisory Board’s recommendation is flawed with regard to the assessment of offensive act no. 1 for lack of written record. However, this flaw is not decisive in order to declare that the Advisory Board’s recommendation was unlawful in its entirety. As noted in considerations 21 and 22 [...], the Advisory Board’s finding that the complainant’s conduct amounted to harassment was based on multiple episodes and related evidence sufficient for the purpose of the adoption of measures aimed at the protection of the victim of harassment. Therefore, the Board’s report deserves considerable deference (see Judgments 4488, consideration 7, and 4180, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 4180, 4488
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; report of the internal appeals body; witness;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In support of their claims, the complainants first submit that their right to an effective internal appeal was breached in that the Appeals Committee’s opinion of 10 June 2021 did not properly address their plea alleging unlawful infringement of their acquired rights, the central element of their appeal submissions. They criticise the Committee for not stating why it rejected that plea and simply leaving it to the Tribunal to rule on its merits. However, although it is true that the Appeals Committee stated in its report that “this question must be settled by the [Tribunal]” – with the apparent intention of making clear that only the Tribunal could provide a conclusive reply – it also stated that it “[was] of the view that [...] the combined measures leading to the retirement contribution rate rising from 14.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent [did] not breach acquired rights”, having justified that finding by reference, in particular, to the Tribunal’s case law setting out the applicable legal tests. The complainants are therefore wrong to argue that the Appeals Committee did not properly address the plea in question.
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4572
134th Session, 2022
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recission in which he described the moral injury caused to him by the entry into force of new regulatory provisions.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainant seeks the setting aside of the Appeals Committee’s opinion that preceded the decision of 16 June 2021.That claim must also be rejected as clearly irreceivable because, according to established case law, such an opinion does not constitute an act adversely affecting the complainant and therefore cannot be appealed (see Judgment 4477, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4477
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t [is not] appropriate [...] to grant [the complainant's] request for the IAC’s opinion to be set aside as, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). This request is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4556
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks to be provided with a copy of his old medical file.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] seeks the setting aside of the IAC’s opinion. However, in itself, that opinion was merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching a final decision, which did not itself cause injury. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 4392, consideration 5, “[a] request to declare the opinion of the [IAC] null and void is irreceivable as the [IAC] has authority to make only recommendations, not decisions”. Established precedent has it that such an opinion does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 3171, consideration 13, 4118, consideration 2, and 4464, consideration 10). It follows that this request is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3171, 4118, 4392, 4464
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; report of the internal appeals body; step in the procedure;
Judgment 4507
134th Session, 2022
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the reasons given by the internal appeal body must respond to all the issues raised by the appellant, and therefore must be complete in substance (see Judgment 4063, consideration 5). However, it is neither unlawful nor inappropriate that the reasons given by the internal appeal body are succinct (see Judgment 4165, consideration 8), provided that they are adequate. The Tribunal notes that the Appeals Council declared in its report that it had examined all the relevant documents and submissions of the parties, and referred to all relevant facts. The conclusions in the report, articulated in four bullet points, are adequate despite their brevity and address all the issues raised by the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4165
Keywords:
report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4488
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her to another post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608, 4407
Keywords:
deference; report of the internal appeals body;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
