Procedure before the Tribunal (1, 3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882, 52, 53, 54, 56, 55, 71, 73, 74, 673, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 643, 682, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 93, 534, 535, 659, 655, 704, 705, 59, 684, 698, 706, 760, 889, 758, 759, 70, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749, 83, 935, 936, 972, 85, 25, 779, 780, 100, 102, 103, 105, 694, 699, 700, 701, 844, 702, 703, 727, 830, 861, 878, 944, 946, 948, 120, 22, 23, 121, 122, 123, 690, 871, 124, 125, 126, 842, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 127, 133, 134, 745, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 672, 825, 826, 140, 315, 644, 650, 676, 689, 692, 693, 665, 740, 886, 914, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 158, 166, 167, 633, 795, 796, 707, 797, 798, 799, 168, 792, 169, 170, 171, 172, 674, 800, 117, 173, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 174, 793, 762, 593, 888, 761, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 21, 794, 801, 884, 916, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Procedure before the Tribunal
Total judgments found: 191
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"All issues of receivability raised may [...] remain undecided because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded."
Keywords:
complaint; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2724
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Reports Board, which is set up by the Director-General and establishes its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations, cannot be regarded as either an internal appeals body or a judicial body. Where an official has had the opportunity to state his or her point of view before the Board and to comment on the relevant supervisors' assessments of his or her performance and conduct, the adversarial principle can reasonably be deemed to have been observed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations of the ILO
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; conduct; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; work appraisal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal's power to order the filing of further submissions may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings."
Keywords:
further submissions; order; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the circumstances, an official is always entitled to have his case judged in proper, transparent and fair proceedings which comply with the general principles of law."
Keywords:
due process; equity; formal requirements; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2667
104th Session, 2008
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The duty to act independently and impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final formal decision in proceedings, but also on bodies responsible for giving an advisory opinion or for making a recommendation to this authority, a fortiori where the recommendation is a formal part of the decision-making process (see Judgment 2315, under 27)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; decision; disciplinary procedure; due process; independence; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2647
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
An external candidate was appointed to the post the complainant had applied for. The complainant contends that, contrary to the Staff Regulations, the applications of candidates already in the Organization's service were not given priority of consideration over those of external candidates. "It is convenient to recall that the Tribunal held in Judgment 107, under 1, that:
'although the Organization is bound to have full regard to the qualifications and experience of persons already in its service, this does not mean that it must necessarily always appoint them in preference to outside applicants. If this privilege were automatically to be granted to the serving staff, the Organization might be led to take decisions contrary to its own interests, a situation which was certainly not intended by those who drafted the Staff Regulations. The position is that persons already in the service of the Organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be at least equal to those of other candidates.'
Those principles were duly taken into account in the selection process, which was carefully and correctly conducted by the Organization, and while the qualifications and experience of the complainant are to be noted, they do not automatically give her a right of precedence over other candidates for the advertised post."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; condition; decision; general principle; internal candidate; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; priority; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; provision; purpose; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2631
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2605
102nd Session, 2007
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that informing a person in advance that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken is not a requisite element of due process. Although notification prior to the start of an investigation may well be the preferred course of action, in certain circumstances alerting an individual to the fact that an investigation is to be undertaken may well compromise the investigation. As well, it may be through a routine review or audit that irregularities are encountered. It is once irregularities have been identified that the individual must be informed of the allegations of irregularities with sufficient precision to enable him to respond adequately; he should then be given an opportunity to respond, in particular to defend himself against the allegations, and to make such further response as the circumstances require prior to any conclusions being reached."
Keywords:
duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply;
Judgment 2594
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to make recommendations to an organisation regarding the implementation of specific procedures on workplace harassment and to order an organisation to make an apology."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; harassment; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; tribunal;
Judgment 2584
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2522
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal concludes that the internal appeal proceedings were not conducted with due diligence or with the care owed by an international organisation to its staff. The complainant had reason to believe that the Agency was making every effort to hamper the proceedings to prevent them from being concluded within a reasonable time. He was not informed of the final outcome of his internal appeal until nearly two months after the Director General had taken his final decision. Moreover, the latter replied to the complainant's request for review more than three months after the request was submitted, and only after an appeal had been lodged with the Joint Appeals Board. The Tribunal concludes from the above that the complainant suffered moral injury."
Keywords:
decision; delay; due process; evidence; internal appeal; late decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; applicable law; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2510
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant's case."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; evidence; further submissions; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; submissions;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2458
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189
Keywords:
application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2440
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
If a staff member withdraws some of his/her claims during the internal appeal procedure, he/she cannot raise them before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
claim; complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; tribunal;
Judgment 2439
99th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2381
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t is essential that both salaries and pensions be paid punctually and in full, if only on account of the precise commitments which beneficiaries may have to honour at the end or the beginning of each month. It would be unacceptable for the Tribunal, when dealing with a complaint of this kind, to take shelter - as the defendant has suggested - behind the principle of de minimis non curat praetor in order to dismiss the matter because it concerns apparently trifling amounts. That would be conceivable only if the Statute of the Tribunal included a provision whereby cases were subject to a prior selection process according to the magnitude of the interests at stake, which is not the case."
Keywords:
amount; complaint; date; grounds; iloat statute; organisation's duties; payment; pension; procedure before the tribunal; provision; salary;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Ordinarily, the process of decision making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal. Occasionally however, what appears to be a single and final decision may embody more than one decision. That will be the case if separate and distinct issues have to be decided. So, too, a decision which does not resolve an entire dispute may nonetheless constitute a final decision if it is a decision on a separate and distinct issue. The present is such a case."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; decision; definition; difference; general principle; iloat; procedure before the tribunal; provisional decision; receivability of the complaint; settlement out of court;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
