Internal remedies exhausted (88, 89, 656, 743,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal remedies exhausted
Total judgments found: 313
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 4909
138th Session, 2024
Global Green Growth Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision of 20 November 2023 terminating her appointment with effect from 31 December 2023 because of the abolition of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In this case, the appeal processes to which the complainant had access under the provisions of aforementioned Chapter 12 of the GGGI Staff Rules were “means of redress as [were] open to her” for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 1. The complainant’s submission that the organization had not, in her view, demonstrated “good will and good faith” in dealing with her situation would not, in any event, be such as to relieve her of the requirement to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, a staff member may not on her or his own initiative evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed (see, for example, Judgments 3706, consideration 3, 2811, considerations 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3706
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4864
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to withhold two months’ salary to comply with a national Court order.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he lawfulness of an administrative decision must be assessed having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time it was adopted. It is firm case law that the validity of a decision or measure cannot be judged on the basis of facts occurring subsequently to that decision or measure (see Judgment 2364, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
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 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, in his letter of 12 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary-General, the complainant based his claims on administrative decisions that he did not challenge within the period prescribed by [...] Staff Rule 11.1.2. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant did not submit a request for reconsideration in respect of his job description or his transfer when he was transferred on 1 January 2014 [...]. Neither did he submit a request for reconsideration in respect of the payslips which he subsequently received every month.
The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that his request of 12 December 2018 was not time-barred because its purpose was to obtain compensation for the whole of the injury he allegedly suffered for the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2020, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to any particular time limit.
The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising an organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for the injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgments 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15).
It follows that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent that it concerns the implied decision dismissing his request of 12 December 2018 for his administrative situation to be regularised, because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
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 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.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complainant’s counsel, by a letter of 6 September 2019 addressed to the Director General, requested both that the complaint with respect to Mr H.B. continue to be considered and that the two investigators appointed to examine the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H. be recused, he did not formally submit this document as an internal complaint under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations against the Director General’s decision of 4 September 2019. The Tribunal considers that, in the present case, this letter was correctly not considered by the Director General to constitute an internal complaint.
It follows that, since the complainant has thus not properly exhausted the internal means of redress provided for in the Staff Regulations in this regard, his complaint must be declared irreceivable insofar as it is directed against the dismissal of the first harassment complaint against Mr H.B.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
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 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
(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) Pursuant to Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant should have filed a complaint before the Tribunal within 90 days as from the expiry of the four-month time limit available to the Administration to reply to his internal complaint, even though 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, in conjunction with Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(c) However, in the present 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 failed to take into account 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 is deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, which may be impugned before the Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no need to declare the complaint irreceivable as time-barred, insofar as it is directed against an implicit decision to dismiss by 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 more than two years that had elapsed between 31 July 2019, when the complainant lodged his internal complaint, and 13 August 2021, when he filed his complaint, and the fact that his counsel had followed up on several occasions, to no avail, with the Director General and the Chairperson of the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Tribunal considers that the complainant was faced with a paralysis of the internal appeals procedure that would allow him to come 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, in particular, 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 17 February 2022 and that that decision was issued in the course of proceedings. Since the Tribunal has the complete file in its possession and the parties have had the opportunity to comment fully in their written submissions on that decision to expressly dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint of 31 July 2019, it considers that, in accordance with its case law, it is appropriate to treat the internal complaint as being directed against the decision of 17 February 2022 (see in particular, for similar cases, Judgments 4769, consideration 3, 4768, consideration 3, 4660, consideration 6, 4065, consideration 3, and 2786, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1486, 2039, 2786, 3146, 3428, 3558, 3715, 4065, 4200, 4268, 4271, 4660, 4768, 4769
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
According to [Judgment 4200, consideration 3], the Tribunal’s case law establishes that delays in the organisation’s internal procedures do not necessarily mean that the appeal process is paralyzed. The Tribunal emphasizes the need for the complainant to demonstrate that the delay is “inordinate and inexcusable”, that she or he has made every effort to expedite the internal procedure, to no avail, and that the circumstances show that the appeal body is unable to reach a decision within a reasonable time.
Upon close examination, the Tribunal finds no evidence in the record suggesting that the internal appeal process was “necessarily paralyzed”. The communications during the COVID-19 pandemic indicate that the SAC was responsive and operational. The complainant was properly informed of the time frame, that is, the stay of proceedings on her appeal until 23 May 2020 due to the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the complainant’s inquiry of 12 June 2020 as to whether the stay of proceedings on her appeal had been lifted, the SAC promptly replied to her on 18 June that it had recently resumed operations, indicating that the appeal body would reach a decision within a reasonable time after the resumption of operations. At the date on which her third complaint was filed, the SAC’s delay in submitting its report to the Executive Director could not be considered as “inordinate and inexcusable”. The complainant’s third complaint is therefore premature and must be dismissed as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4200
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4765
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open an administrative investigation into his conduct, and the dismissal of his harassment complaint.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As regards the dismissal of the harassment complaint lodged by the complainant on 19 October 2020, the Tribunal notes that he did not challenge that decision using the appeal procedures provided for in Article 92 of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency. Under Article 92(2), the complainant ought to have submitted an internal complaint against the decision on his harassment complaint. Instead, he impugned it directly before the Tribunal. The complaint is therefore irreceivable in this respect as the complainant contravened the requirement laid down in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal that internal means of redress be exhausted.
Keywords:
harassment; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s internal appeal was receivable. Contrary to what IFAD submits, the complaint before the Tribunal is therefore receivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to the extent that it seeks the setting aside of the decision of 20 February 2017. In addition, the decision of 20 February 2017 is tainted by an error of law in that it rejected the complainant’s appeal as time-barred.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4517
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As it stands, the complaint must [...] be dismissed as irreceivable on the grounds that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal remedies provided for in the applicable Staff Regulations, it being recalled that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, to comply with this condition of receivability, the complainant must not only have exhausted the internal remedies but also duly complied with the applicable rules and time limits (see, for example, Judgments 1244, considerations 1 and 4, or 4101, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244, 4101
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4478
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]ccording to the case law, a suspension decision has, by itself, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect and can be challenged by itself (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4237
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; suspension;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The defendant] argues that any claim for material damages that may be inferred from the complaint is irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, because the complainant did not exhaust the internal means of redress available to him regarding such a claim. The Tribunal however observes that, although the complainant did not request material damages in his appeal […] to the Executive Director against the termination decision, he requested material damages in his appeal to the Appeals Committee [….] Moreover, as the Appeals Committee found the complainant’s internal appeal receivable ratione materiae, which would have included the claim for material damages, and the final decision accepted the recommendations of the Committee, the Organization is precluded from raising this plea before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
estoppel; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4369
131st Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgment 3905, consideration 15) and “the abolition decision is an administrative decision challengeable with the Tribunal in accordance with Article II of its Statute”, provided that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress that may be available to her or him (see also Judgments 3928, consideration 14, and 3929, consideration 13). Thus, since an internal appeal was not lodged in the prescribed period, the decision to abolish the complainant’s post has become final and cannot be contested in these proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3905, 3928, 3929
Keywords:
abolition of post; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment 4365
131st Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that by refusing UNESCO’s request that it be allowed to confine its reply to the issue of the receivability of the complaint, the President of the Tribunal had necessarily dismissed UNESCO’s objection to receivability.
The complainant is mistaken. The President’s decision, issued in the exercise of his general power to direct the conduct of the proceedings, in no way prejudged the receivability of the complaint and had no bearing on the complainant’s duty to exhaust internal remedies.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4271
129th Session, 2020
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After the delivery of Judgment 4006, the complainant re-submitted to the new Registrar of the ICC a harassment grievance on the part of the former Registrar. He filed his complaint directly with the Tribunal, considering that he did not receive a final decision on his grievance within the prescribed time limit.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
In filing his complaint with the Tribunal, the complainant relies on Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. He considers that as he did not receive a final decision within sixty days of the date on which the DAB’s report was submitted to the Registrar, he is entitled to proceed directly to the Tribunal, by filing a complaint within the following ninety-day period.
This approach is mistaken. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, for example, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a “decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal. Moreover, firm precedent has it that when an organisation forwards a claim before the expiry of the prescribed period of sixty days to the competent authority, this step in itself constitutes “a decision upon [the] claim” within the meaning of this provision (see, on these points, Judgments 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034 and 3956). In the present case, it is obvious that the complainant’s grievance has been examined in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Administrative Instruction ICC/AI/2005/005. His complaint therefore cannot be considered receivable under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681, 3034, 3956, 3975, 4174
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Judgment 4269
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former EPO employee subjected to a “house ban”, seeks to impugn the decision to reject his requests for review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. It is clear from the file that the email [...] from the Conflict Resolution Unit, which confirmed that the complainant’s challenge to the house ban imposed on him was being addressed through the internal appeal procedure, does not constitute a final decision for the purposes of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Keywords:
final decision; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4268
129th Session, 2020
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was suspended and revoked for having behaved inappropriately, challenges the delay in the appeal proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an argument based on an inordinate and inexcusable delay may not be accepted unless a complainant shows that the requirement to exhaust the internal remedies has had the effect of paralysing the exercise of her or his rights. It is only then that she or he is permitted to come directly to the Tribunal where the competent bodies are not able to determine an internal appeal within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances. A complainant can make use of this possibility only where 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 decision within a reasonable time (see Judgments 3558, consideration 9, or 4200, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3558, 4200
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
Judgment 4242
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to consider her claim for compensation for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; illness; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred;
Judgment 4226
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is difficult to say, in the face of this correspondence, that the complainant’s internal appeal had been paralysed. It is true that the appeal remained unaddressed by the Appeals Committee for a very long time though, in fact, a notice of hearing was issued on 4 April 2018 advising the complainant that the hearing would be held on 8 May 2018, which was later rescheduled to 22 May 2018 when it actually occurred. But the complainant was being told that his appeal would be heard and efforts were being made to ensure that that would happen. The appeal process was not paralysed and the complainant had not exhausted internal means of redress when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. By operation of Article VII, paragraph 1, his first complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute is clear in its terms. It provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless [...] the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. Article VII, paragraph 1, is satisfied when the complainant’s internal appeal has been paralysed (see, for example, Judgments 3685, consideration 6, 3302, consideration 4, and 2939, consideration 9) and the complainant has done her or his utmost to have the internal appeal resolved (see, for example, Judgments 2039, consideration 4, and 1674, consideration 6(b)). This case law simply identifies circumstances where the complainant can be treated as having exhausted internal means of redress, thus satisfying the provisions of the Article notwithstanding that, as a matter of fact, either an internal appeal body has not addressed the appeal or the executive head of the organisation has not done so at the time the complaint was filed with the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 2039, 2939, 3302, 3685
Keywords:
delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4225
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her requests to reclassify her post and to grant her a special post allowance at grade P-3.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4224
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal imposed on him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; former official; internal remedies exhausted;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
