|
|
 |
|
|
Absence of final decision (25,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Absence of final decision
Total judgments found: 81
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste les décisions de rejeter ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral et demande réparation pour le préjudice qu’il estime avoir subi.
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:
Dans la mesure où la requête est dirigée contre la décision du Directeur général de rejeter, comme infondée, sa première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H., le Tribunal observe ce qui suit :
a) Lorsque l’administration prend des mesures pour traiter une réclamation, par exemple en la transmettant à l’organe de recours interne compétent, cette démarche constitue en soi une «décision touchant ladite réclamation» au sens de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal, qui fait obstacle à la naissance d’une décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être déférée devant le Tribunal (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3715, au considérant 4, 3428, au considérant 18, et 3146, au considérant 12).
b) En application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le requérant aurait dû introduire une requête devant le Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours à compter de l’expiration du délai de quatre mois dont disposait l’administration pour répondre à sa réclamation, et ce, même si la Commission paritaire des litiges avait été saisie. La présente requête devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour tardiveté en vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 2, du Statut du Tribunal, combiné avec le paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif.
c) Mais, en l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que le requérant a été induit en erreur par l’Organisation lorsque cette dernière lui a indiqué que, en raison de la transmission de sa réclamation à la Commission paritaire des litiges, il devait, en application de la jurisprudence du Tribunal relative à l’application de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut, attendre la décision définitive du Directeur général avant de pouvoir saisir le Tribunal. Ce faisant, l’Organisation a en effet omis de tenir compte de ce que, en application du paragraphe 2 de l’article 92 du Statut administratif, le défaut de réponse du Directeur général à une réclamation dans un délai de quatre mois à partir du jour de l’introduction de celle-ci vaut par ailleurs lui-même décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée devant le Tribunal. Il n’y a pas lieu de déclarer la requête irrecevable pour tardiveté, en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre une décision de rejet implicite émanant du Directeur général. Statuer en sens contraire reviendrait en effet à priver indûment le requérant de son droit de saisir le Tribunal en raison du seul comportement de l’Organisation.
d) Le Tribunal observe que, bien que le non-respect par le requérant du délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours pour saisir le Tribunal ait été ci-dessus reconnu comme admissible en raison du fait qu’il lui avait été indiqué, à tort, par l’Organisation qu’il devait attendre une décision explicite, l’intéressé n’a finalement pas attendu l’intervention de cette décision pour introduire sa requête. Celle-ci devrait donc, en principe, être déclarée irrecevable pour méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement préalable des voies de recours internes prévue par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. Mais, en l’espèce, compte tenu du délai d’un an et sept mois qui s’était écoulé entre l’introduction de la réclamation du requérant, le 5 juin 2020, et le dépôt de sa requête, le 7 février 2022, et du fait que son conseil avait procédé, en vain, à des relances auprès du Directeur général, le Tribunal considère que le requérant était confronté à une paralysie de la procédure de recours interne lui permettant de saisir directement le Tribunal. En effet, en vertu de la jurisprudence du Tribunal, un requérant est recevable à saisir directement le Tribunal d’une requête dirigée contre la décision initiale qu’il entend contester lorsque les organes compétents ne sont pas en mesure de statuer sur son recours interne dans un délai raisonnable au regard des circonstances de l’espèce, à condition qu’il ait vainement entrepris ce que l’on pouvait attendre de sa part en vue d’accélérer la procédure interne et qu’il ressorte de la situation constatée que l’autorité de recours n’était effectivement pas à même de rendre sa décision définitive dans un tel délai raisonnable (voir notamment les jugements 4660, au considérant 2, 4271, au considérant 5, 4268, aux considérants 10 et 11, 4200, au considérant 3, 3558, au considérant 9, 2039, au considérant 4, ou 1486, au considérant 11).
e) Le Tribunal relève, en outre, qu’une décision définitive a finalement été prise par le Directeur général en date du 12 mai 2022 et que cette décision a été produite en cours de procédure, de même que l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges y relatif. Dès lors que le Tribunal est en possession d’un dossier complet et que les parties ont eu la possibilité de s’exprimer pleinement dans leurs écritures au sujet de cette décision de rejet explicite de la réclamation du requérant du 5 juin 2020, et donc de la décision de rejet de la première plainte pour harcèlement en ce qu’elle était dirigée contre M. H. B., il estime que, conformément à sa jurisprudence, il y a lieu de requalifier la requête comme étant dirigée contre cette dernière décision du 12 mai 2022 (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure similaires, les jugements 4769, au considérant 3, 4768, au considérant 3, 4660, au considérant 6, 4065, au considérant 3, et 2786, au considérant 3).
La présente requête est par conséquent recevable en ce qu’elle met en cause la légalité de la décision du Directeur général du 12 mai 2022 de rejeter, comme infondée, la première plainte pour harcèlement moral dirigée contre M. P. H. C’est donc dans cette mesure qu’elle sera examinée par le 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 4211
129th Session, 2020
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what she considers to be an implied rejection of her claims of moral and sexual harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 12
Extract:
In the absence of any action having been taken following the closure of the investigation and having regard to IOM’s statement that the complainant should have filed a complaint with the Tribunal within 90 days of IOM’s notification of the closure of her case, the complainant was entitled to infer that an implied decision to dismiss her appeal had been taken. This inference can now be more readily drawn given that an express decision as of the date of the adoption of the present judgment has not been taken. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the complaint is receivable.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; implied rejection of internal appeal;
Judgment 4065
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant filed the present complaints with the Tribunal before the related proceedings before the Appeals Committee were concluded. The Appeals Committee subsequently issued reports on the appeals and the Director-General took final decisions on the complainant’s second and third appeals on 20 April and 29 May 2017, respectively. The parties have had the opportunity to provide submissions on the final decisions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will consider the second and third complaints as directed against the Director-General’s final decisions of 20 April 2017 and 29 May 2017, respectively.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; impugned decision;
Judgment 3942
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reinstate her in her former position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the complaint form filed with the Tribunal, the complainant identifies this opinion and recommendation of the Appeals Board, having regard to the date of decision identified on the form, as the impugned decision. [...] It appears, from the material before the Tribunal, that no decision was made by the Director-General following, and based upon, the Appeals Board report in the period of a little over three months between the issuing of the Appeals Board report and the filing of the complaint in the Tribunal. However, UNESCO does not challenge the receivability of the complaint in these proceedings, which can be taken to be an agreement that the matter can be dealt with by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint form; impugned decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3498
120th Session, 2015
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant is seeking retroactive admission into the EMBL pension scheme as from the commencement of his service at EMBL.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; pension entitlements;
Judgment 3457
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that the complaint was premature and summarily dismissed it.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The decision that the complainant challenges before the Tribunal is a decision of a procedural nature and not a final decision adversely affecting her. It is a decision to start a new process of performance evaluation, and only at the end of this process would the complainant be in position to assess whether or not the outcome of the process is prejudicial to her. Her complaint to the Tribunal is therefore premature [...]."
Keywords:
absence of final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint allowed; decision quashed; equal treatment; harassment; invalidity; joinder; service-incurred;
Judgment 3433
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision to reject his appeals concerning warning letters he received in relation to his staff report.
Consideration 9
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 a part of a challenge to the final decision but they, themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.” (See Judgment 2366, under 16.) Consequently, the complaint is irreceivable in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366
Keywords:
absence of final decision; final decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the two warnings are not final decisions adversely affecting the complainant; they must be considered as acts, or steps, of an administrative procedure which could lead to a final decision."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; final decision;
Judgment 3384
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint is summarily dismissed because the complainant did not impugn a final decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 3220
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, aiming at the upgrade of the complainant's post, was considered as premature by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3171
114th Session, 2013
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges a performance evaluation report, alleging that it was in reality retaliation against her.
Consideration 13
Extract:
An opinion issued by an advisory appeal body, which is merely a preparatory step in the process of reaching the final decision on the appeal filed with that body, does not in itself constitute a decision causing injury which may be impugned before the Tribunal. While the complainant may and in fact does plead that the Board’s report is invalid in support of her challenge to the impugned decision, her claim to have this report set aside must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable (see, for example, Judgment 1104, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1104
Keywords:
absence of final decision; provisional decision;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment / Non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment as a result of restructuring.
"The case law allows that where the Administration has failed to take a decision 'within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', as provided for by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and the staff member has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time and a decision is not received, he or she may proceed directly before the Tribunal without waiting for a final decision (see Judgment 2631, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2948
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the [Tribunal's]Statute, '[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him under the applicable Staff Regulations'. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal's case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant he or she does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see, for example, Judgments 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511 and the case law cited therein, and 2582)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1491, 2232, 2443, 2511, 2582
Keywords:
absence of final decision; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2901
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"As the Tribunal had occasion to explain in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2853
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The difference as to the complainant's performance rating was not resolved in internal grievance proceedings and the complainant filed an internal appeal. Having received no response, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Registry of the Tribunal, stating that he wished to file a complaint.
"It is fundamental that a litigant cannot pursue the same claim before different adjudicative bodies at the same time. Normally, the litigant will be forced to elect the forum in which he or she intends to proceed. That did not happen in the present case. Nonetheless, the complainant pursued his internal appeal to finality and, thus, must be taken to have elected to pursue internal remedies rather than to proceed at that stage before the Tribunal on the basis of an implied rejection of his internal appeal. However, that does not mean that the complaint is irreceivable."
"[When] the complainant [decided] to pursue internal remedies [...], [his] complaint had already been filed and it was receivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute. Moreover, he then had a cause of action, as his claim was not satisfied until 13 December 2007."
"Even though the complaint became without object on 13 December 2007, it was receivable when filed and the complainant then had a cause of action. Accordingly, he is entitled, in these circumstances, to the costs associated with its filing, even though not requested in the complaint. However, he is not entitled to costs in respect of subsequent pleadings which were filed after his decision to pursue his internal appeal. There will be an award of costs in the amount of 500 Swiss francs, but the complaint must otherwise be dismissed."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; costs; direct appeal to tribunal; duplication of proceedings; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 2680
104th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the decision [...] by which he obtained satisfaction was delivered after he had filed his complaint, the complainant is not entitled to costs. Indeed, the complaint was premature because [...] that decision was delivered within the applicable time limit."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; date; decision; no award of costs; time limit;
Judgment 2644
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action (for example, a payment to his or her bank account) as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]). However, where [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, as in the present case, it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2629
Keywords:
absence of final decision; decision; interpretation; official; payment; request by a party; right;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
