Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 973, 819,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 299
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
Judgment 3694
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal against the new Internal Instructions on the patent granting procedure, contending inter alia that the Appeals Committee was improperly composed.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that none of the cases cited by the Appeals Committee dealt with the composition of an internal appeal body. It also observes that considering the quasi-judicial functions of the Appeals Committee, its composition is fundamental and changing it changes the body itself. While it is true that the fundamental functions of that body must not be paralysed, it is also true that the body itself cannot be changed through a changed composition. The balance sought to be achieved by the composition of this body, which includes members appointed by the Administration and the staff representation, is a fundamental guarantee of its impartiality. That balanced composition is an essential feature underpinning its existence. Without it, it is not the Appeals Committee. The case will therefore be sent back to the EPO so that the Appeals Committee, composed in accordance with the applicable rules, may examine the appeal.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeals body;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3621
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges two appointments of the President of the Office to the Internal Appeals Committee on the grounds that they were not preceded by consultation of the General Advisory Committee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; complaint dismissed; consultation; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3608
121st Session, 2016
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final administrative decision of the Director General by which he dismissed her internal appeal against the decision not to pay her moral damages for harassment and for injury to her dignity and reputation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The report of the JAB manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration and evaluation of the evidence and whether any of the conduct about which the complainant is aggrieved can be characterised as harassment, a breach of the IAEA’s duty of care or as otherwise unlawful. It is now settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal that in some circumstances reports of internal appeal bodies warrant “considerable deference” (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3597
121st Session, 2016
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Commission has the authority to review the details of appeals and, when necessary, to recommend a precise remedy. According to well settled case law, the findings of such an internal body warrant deference. Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 2295, under 10, 3400, under 6, 3439, under 7, and 3447, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3439, 3447
Keywords:
internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
In its detailed report, the JAAB clearly referred to the complainant’s numerous submissions and allegations and demonstrated in its findings and conclusions that it had indeed understood and considered all the evidence before it, but that it simply found no flaw in the investigation procedure nor in the conclusion that no harassment had occurred. The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence to show that the JAAB’s findings, or the procedure, suffered any material flaw. “Consistent case law holds that ‘harassment and mobbing do not require malice or intent, but that behaviour cannot be considered as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for it’ […]. The complainant did not show that the [JAAB’s] finding and conclusions involved any reviewable error. The situations and events that she cites as examples of mobbing and harassment cannot be considered as such because there is a reasonable explanation for each example.” (See Judgment 3192, under 15.) It is clear from the submissions of both parties, that the situations which the complainant perceived as harassment were quite reasonably explained by the managerial necessities of the Organization. Essentially, the conflict that resulted in the allegations of harassment lay in the poor working relationships that existed between the complainant and other members of the ILO/AIDS team.
[...]
[T]he Tribunal concludes that the complainant has failed to establish that harassment has occurred and finds that there was no manifest error in the JAAB’s weighing of the evidence. The working relations were tense, but not due to misconduct or abnormal behaviour by the complainant’s superiors. It should be noted that the situation could have been avoided if management had been more sensitive to the complainant’s personal needs and history when dealing with her requests and formulating their replies. However, the Tribunal recognises that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests, and therefore it cannot declare that any breach of care has occurred (see for example Judgments 2587, under 10, and 3192, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587, 3192
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeals body; report;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"With regard to the claims against the JAAB’s analysis of the investigation, the Tribunal recalls that it will only interfere in the case of a manifest error in the JAAB’s assessment of the facts (see Judgment 2295, under 10). Though it has read and considered all the elements submitted to it, the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence that was presented to the JAAB. The complainant’s plea concerning the absence of oral hearings is unfounded. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2893, under 5, in relevant part: “the general principles applicable to […] an appeal body [do not] require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities.” (See also Judgment 3023, under 11.) The complainant was indeed allowed to submit her written appeal in full, and in fact she also attached hundreds of annexes to be considered. The Tribunal finds that to be more than sufficient opportunity to present her case and considers that the JAAB was fully informed about the case and did not need to grant her request for oral proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 623, 2295, 2893, 3023
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error; mistake of fact;
Judgment 3438
119th Session, 2015
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's request for reintegration was moot and that her other claims were devoid of merit.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant submits that she was deprived of an effective internal appeal. In her opinion, the membership of the Appeal Board and the manner in which it functions made it impossible for that body to provide a thorough statement of the reasons for its opinion, or to arrive at them independently.[...] This plea, which the Tribunal finds to be intemperate and improper, is therefore devoid of merit."
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3424
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 11(a) and (b)
Extract:
"(a) First, it should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see, for example, the above-mentioned Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law. Consequently, although in this case the complainant himself was mistaken as to his right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive him of the benefit of that procedure.
(b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3423
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the impugned implied decision was flawed.
Consideration 12(a) and (b)
Extract:
"(a) First, it should be recalled that, as the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see, for example, [...] Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law. Consequently, although in this case the complainants themselves were mistaken as to their right to resort to the internal appeal procedure, it would be inappropriate to deprive them of the benefit of that procedure.
(b) Secondly, apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). As rightly pointed out by the defendant, the Appeal Board plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2781, 2811, 3067
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Consideration 9(b)
Extract:
It is true that the two successive appeals thus lodged by the complainants were not submitted to the authorities competent to hear them. But consistent precedent has it that, although rules of procedure should ordinarily be strictly complied with, they must not set traps for staff members who are defending their rights and therefore they must not be construed with too much formalism. Consequently, an appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the one which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, under 6, 2882, under 6, or 3027, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882, 3027
Keywords:
competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3400
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision in relation to the FAO's response to her harassment claim and her performance appraisal for 2009.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he report of the Committee manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and applicable principles. Its conclusions are rational and balanced. In these circumstances its findings warrant “considerable deference” (see Judgment 2295, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
internal appeals body;
Judgment 3369
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the application of deductions to her dependant’s allowance for participation in a strike and the amount deducted from most elements of her remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he complainant is manifestly misguided in her belief that she can accuse the members appointed by the Staff Committee of failing to defend her during her hearing before the Committee, since those members, who are required just like other Committee members to execute their duties in a fully independent manner, cannot be expected to perform such a role."
Keywords:
independence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3354
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside the decision dismissing the complainant’s request for the reimbursement of pharmaceutical costs on the ground that the case should have been referred to the Medical Committee.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A hearing of any internal appeal body provides an opportunity for the parties to articulate more fully their case and to answer questions from the members of the appeal body."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization maintains that the Director-General was right in considering that the Appeals Committee had overstepped its mandate. To support this view it merely refers to the case law concerning the limitations to which the Tribunal’s own power of review is subject. In so doing, it commits an error in law. As a matter of fact, the power of such a review body extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions.
Keywords:
internal appeals body; judicial review;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 3253
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that internal appeals are an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony (see, for example, Judgment 3184, consideration 15). Also, the internal appeal process is ordinarily an extremely significant element of the entire system of review of administrative decisions affecting the rights of staff employed by organisations which have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3222, consideration 9). Moreover, every official has an interest in the proper establishment of reports on his or her performance on which her or his career may depend (see, for example, Judgment 3241, consideration 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184, 3222, 3241
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3208
115th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042
Keywords:
bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;
Judgment 3190
114th Session, 2013
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract, failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[The complainant's] assertion that she did not file an appeal before the Centre’s ad hoc Appellate Body because it could not be considered to be independent and impartial must be rejected. It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed on his or her own initiative to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed before the Tribunal (see Judgment 2811, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein). The complaint is therefore irreceivable."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3184
114th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him without pay, alleging that it was taken in breach of the rule against double jeopardy.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires that “the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | next >
|
