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 2172
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; decision; different appraisals; extension of contract; mistake of fact; performance report; period; post; probationary period; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; supervisor; transfer; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2170
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Organisation withheld the complainant's salary increment on the grounds that more time was needed to assess her performance. It claims that the complainant refused to cooperate with evaluations. "If that were the case, it was the job of the administration to deal with the situation and not to act as if the complainant did not exist[...] while there is no doubt that an employee cannot obtain the right to an annual salary increment by deliberately sabotaging the reporting process, it is equally the case that an employer cannot deprive its staff of the increments to which they are entitled by failing to complete the necessary preliminary steps."
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; grounds; increase; increment; increment withheld; official; organisation; organisation's duties; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; right; salary; time limit; work appraisal;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents.
The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
Keywords:
acceptance; agreed termination; appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; confidential evidence; counsel; disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition; iloat; lack of evidence; mistake of fact; official; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; request by a party; right;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In a selection for a post, the most worthy candidates are selected 'in', i.e. to become members of staff, whereas in a mutually agreed separation exercise these are the very people who are most likely to be selected 'out' i.e. not to be released, in accordance with the requirements of the service. The interest of the organisation, which is paramount in each case, requires that the best candidates be employed and promoted in the first instance, and that they be retained in the organisation's service in the second."
Keywords:
agreed termination; appointment; candidate; competition; organisation; organisation's interest; post; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2083
92nd Session, 2002
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The complainant suffered from retinal detachments and a detachment of the vitreous. The organization recognised her eye condition as service incurred. In "September 1998 [...] the [organization] decide[d] to stop reimbursing the bills [she submitted] on [the] grounds [...] that curing her retinal detachments was no longer the object of the treatment. However, it did not show that the service-incurred injuries were not a "direct and principal" cause of the treatment [... ] The Tribunal takes the view that although, as the organization says, the decision to stop reimbursing the bills was at the discretion of the Director-General, it could not be taken without an independent expert medical opinion obtained through a process which provides all the safeguards of transparency and impartiality." The case is therefore sent back to the organization.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; discretion; due process; executive head; expert inquiry; grounds; illness; independence; lack of evidence; medical expenses; medical opinion; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; professional accident; refund; refusal; safeguard; service-incurred;
Judgment 2072
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The appeal procedure was inordinately long: the case was before the Committee for two years, yet it was not a very difficult one and it needed to be settled promptly [...] In these circumstances, the delay in resolving it amounts to negligence warranting compensation. The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant is entitled to redress, and it sets the amount at 3,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; internal appeals body; misconduct; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; right; submissions;
Judgment 2069
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, whose duty station is The Hague, assisted a colleague at an appeals committee hearing in Berlin, as allowed by the Service Regulations. He asks for an additional day's leave to compensate for the day's leave he had to take to go to Berlin. "Neither the texts cited, nor the defendant's arguments, nor the circumstances of the case afford proper grounds for the assertion that the complainant had to deduct a day from his annual leave in order to assent to his colleague's request for assistance."
Keywords:
annual leave; compensatory leave; duty station; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; written rule;
Judgment 2018
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
The complainant attacks the decision not to confirm his appointment after a probationary period and to terminate his employment prior to the expiry of his fixed-term contract. "The Tribunal [...] notes that [...] the organisation's legal division advised the administration of the procedure to be followed in terminating the complainant's appointment. Specifically [...] the administration was advised of its obligation to set up a special advisory board to investigate the case and to report back to the Director-General. This advice, like the [...] findings of the Special Advisory Board, appear inexplicably to have been simply ignored by the Director-General. In the circumstances, the impugned decision [...] must be quashed."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; contract; decision quashed; executive head; fixed-term; organisation's duties; probationary period; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; termination of employment;
Judgment 1901
88th Session, 2000
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The organization refused the complainant both an unsuitability and an invalidity pension. It explains that it couldn't arrange for a final medical examination at the time of the complainant's dismissal because he was in prison. "The Tribunal cannot accept that argument. Under Article R II 4.18 of the Staff Regulations, a medical examination is compulsory when a contract is terminated, for whatever reason. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, [the organization] should have been at particular pains to comply with that rule. In the absence of such an examination the pension fund should have determined whether, upon termination of service, the complainant was to be treated as unfit for work because of a deterioration in his physical or mental health which occurred while he was employed by [the organization]. The administrator of the Pension Fund was, therefore, wrong [...] when he refused to consider the complainant's entitlement to a pension for unsuitability." The case was sent back to the Pension Fund.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.18 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF CERN
Keywords:
cern pension fund; disability benefit; due process; incapacity; invalidity; medical examination; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; service-incurred; termination of employment;
Judgment 1878
87th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 31
Extract:
"It is not acceptable that the organization, in defending this complaint, disclaims all responsibility for any alleged shortcomings of the Appeals Board."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply;
Judgment 1832
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1829
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Any challenge to administrative decisions which were rendered with regard to the complainant after the filing of the first internal appeal but which were not the subject of further internal appeals is irreceivable: such decisions are not final, the complainant not having exhausted all existing means of resisting them as Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to review [an administrative decision] notwithstanding that the internal appeal procedure has not been completed. The Tribunal's case law has it that where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII(1) will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time. [The Tribunal refers to the case law.] The complainant's internal appeal was received by the organisation on 16 April 1997. Her statement is lengthy and has 24 annexes. Less than a month later the Vice-President completed his initial assessment of her claims and referred the matter to the Appeals Committee. She filed this complaint just over three months later. The Tribunal holds that at the date of filing the present complaint the internal appeal process had not been unreasonably delayed and there was no indication that it was unlikely to come to an end within a reasonable time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1789
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The Organisation] rejected [the complainant's application] on the grounds that he was overqualified [for the job put up for competition]. Such grounds are wrong in law. Yet they are the only ones on which the [organisation] rejected the complainant, purporting to act under R II 1.03 [of the Staff Regulations]. It thereby denied the complainant his right to apply and to have his application properly considered. There was breach of equal treatment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 1.03 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1787
86th Session, 1999
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The qualifications expected may be just 'desirable', not requirements binding in law. But the appointing authority is not free on that account [...] to disregard the fact that some do qualify and to plump for the very one who does not, even one who in other respects has the right experience and skills. [...] Here the Organization picked someone wanting in listed qualifications which, though said to be only 'desirable', were in fact essential. It thereby fell short of the standards of objectiveness and openness that must govern appointment to a senior post in an international organisation. The process of selection cannot stand [...]" (See Judgment 1595, under 10.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; condition; criteria; discretion; flaw; post; post description; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; qualifications; vacancy notice;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When a decision is adverse to a staff member the competent administrative authority does have to reveal the reasons for it. But when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly, when a choice is made between candidates the reasons for the choice need not be notified at the same time as the decision."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; time limit;
Judgment 1752
85th Session, 1998
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[The Tribunal] may not replace qualified medical opinion with its own, though it may review the procedure and say whether the doctors' findings show any factual mistake or inconsistency, or overlook an essential fact, or draw a plainly wrong conclusion from the evidence."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disregard of essential fact; judicial review; limits; medical board; medical opinion; mistaken conclusion; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1734
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(g)
Extract:
"An organisation does have a duty to spare the staff member unnecessary injury and, if it sees a blatant procedural mistake, must, if possible, alert him to it."
Keywords:
duty to inform; injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1730
84th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Like any other organisation in the United Nations system, the FAO has a duty to ensure that its staff attain the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence. The arrangements made with the Chinese government up to 1992 prevented the Organization from exercising its own discretion about the level of competence of Chinese recruits. The fact that the arrangements have ceased is to be welcomed and any surviving anomalies should be corrected, not perpetuated."
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; flaw; independence; organisation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"While it is true that the records of selection committees must be made available to appellate bodies, yet, insofar as they relate to staff other than the appellants themselves, they are confidential, and there is no general requirement of disclosure to such appellants."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.9.340.3
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1720
84th Session, 1998
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A strong line of precedent has it that time limits, though necessary in law, are not supposed to set traps: they are to be applied with the good faith that must govern relations between an international organisation and its staff."
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeal; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; time limit; written rule;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
