Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 455
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
Judgment 4811
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, widow and successor of a former consultant for the FAO, who died while on official travel on the Organization’s behalf, impugns the Director-General’s decision dismissing her internal appeal against the decision informing her that the incident leading to her husband’s death had not been recognised as attributable to the performance of official duties and that she therefore was not entitled to claim compensation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal entirely agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Appeals Committee, which the Director-General followed in the impugned decision, and recalls that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations (see, for example, Judgments 4673, consideration 13, 4374, consideration 8, 4184, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8). As the complainant’s appeal of 23 July 2021 was lodged late, the present complaint is clearly irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4374, 4655, 4673
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4781
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 11, 4662, consideration 11, 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6). Accordingly, that official must have the opportunity, insofar as is compatible with the rules of receivability and procedure to which she or he is subject, to freely develop the arguments in support of her or his appeal.
[...]
A provision that gives an appeal body the ability to waive the time limits that normally apply confers on that body discretionary power to be used according to the circumstances of each case. However, in the event of a dispute on the matter, it is for the Tribunal to ensure that the appeal body has not exercised that power improperly (see, for example, Judgment 3267, considerations 3 and 4).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that, given the very particular situation in which the complainant found herself at the material time, the Appeal Board was indeed presented with exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the aforementioned subparagraph (d), which warranted permission being given to the complainant to finalise her appeal outside the time limit, and that the Board was therefore acting improperly in refusing to give her that opportunity, attempting to justify this position by a reference to “normal practice and procedures”, from which it should therefore have departed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 3267, 4408, 4662, 4697
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; exception; internal appeal; right to be heard; time limit;
Judgment 4780
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
“The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
(See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 8
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 331.4, entitled ‘Appeals by Former Staff Members’, provides that former staff members shall have access to the appeals procedure. FAO Manual paragraph 331.4.1 specifically states that “[f]ormer staff members [...] may lodge an appeal in accordance with the provisions of this Manual Section subject to Manual [paragraphs] 331.4.2 and 331.4.3”.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; former official; internal appeal; internal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted;
Judgment 4764
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), ‘where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)’. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”
It is true that the [Global Board of Appeal] did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the [Global Board of Appeal] is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; internal appeal; investigation;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Since the complainant was denied due process in the internal appeal and was unlawfully deprived of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process, he will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 15,000 euros.
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; moral damages;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the present case, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information that would enable it to reach an informed decision on the complainant’s harassment complaint. The investigation report before the Tribunal is so heavily redacted that much of the documentation relevant to the allegation of harassment, namely the witness statements, is omitted. […] In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to refer the case back to the Global Fund so that (unless the case is settled in the meantime): (i) the Appeal Board shall carry out a new internal appeal process, in line with due process requirements (including by giving the complainant the opportunity to comment on the investigation report and the evidence gathered, redacted as appropriate to safeguard the interests of third parties, in order to challenge or rectify them); and (ii) the Executive Director shall take a new decision on the Appeal Board’s recommendation.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; due process; internal appeal;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 26
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for the award of 50,000 euros in moral damages, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law, firstly, that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 4559, consideration 10). Secondly, settled case law also holds that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see Judgment 4178, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4178, 4559
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant cannot validly claim that, in the circumstances of the case, she was misled by the Organisation with regard to exercising her right of appeal. Although the Tribunal’s case law recognises that there are some exceptions to the general principle that the time limits set for internal appeal procedures must be strictly observed where an organisation has misled a staff member, depriving her or him of the possibility of exercising a right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see [...] Judgment 4184, consideration 4), those exceptions are not applicable in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Tribunal also recalled in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time (see also, to the same effect, Judgment 3704, considerations 2 and 3). The rationale for this principle is that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a decision to refuse to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
It is true that in this case the impugned decision does not, strictly speaking, concern a refusal to appoint an official to a post but a refusal to place her on a roster. The question is therefore whether such a refusal adversely affects a staff member in itself or, in other words, whether the fact of not being placed on such a roster is capable of having a legal effect.
The grounds for the impugned decision explicitly state that placement of a staff member on the roster does not confer an advantage in itself, as it does not create an entitlement to be considered for a particular job since any application is considered against the specific terms of assignment.
However, the Tribunal observes that, in urgent and exceptional circumstances, a manager may select a candidate who fulfils all the criteria for the vacant post directly from the roster. It follows that the fact of refusing placement on a roster is capable of producing legal effects and adversely affecting the person concerned, without there being any need to determine in these proceedings whether such a mechanism is compatible with all the other rules and regulations applicable to Interpol staff members. Accordingly, that refusal is a decision open to internal appeal.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Secretary General’s decision to declare the complainant’s internal appeal inadmissible rests on an obvious error of law.
The Tribunal considers that the Secretary General’s decision raises particular concern given that Staff Rule 13.1.3, which allows him to prevent appeals from being considered by the Joint Appeals Committee, involves the fundamental safeguard provided to staff members of exercising the right of appeal against decisions that affect them and that this rule must therefore be applied extremely cautiously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; internal appeal; right of appeal; roster;
Judgment 4618
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law in this area, a decision not to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
While the Secretary General also referred in his decision to the broad discretion enjoyed by an international organisation’s executive head in a selection procedure, that issue, which relates to the review of the merits of decisions taken in this area, has no bearing on the receivability of appeals directed against those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; discretion; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4592
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of the amounts transferred into the Eurocontrol scheme in respect of his previously-acquired pension rights and seeks compensation for the injury he considers he has suffered as a result of alleged negligence on the part of the Organisation.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]ccording to the settled case law of the Tribunal, where the rules applicable to an organisation provide for an internal procedure, that organisation is required to observe and apply those rules under the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see Judgments 4506, consideration 5, and 4310, consideration 9). Given that, in the aforementioned Office Notice No. 06/11, Eurocontrol specifically provides that the Joint Committee for Disputes is tasked with giving advisory opinions on complaints made pursuant to Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, and that, before taking a decision to reject even a part of such a complaint, the Director General must seek the opinion of that committee, Eurocontrol could not, as it in fact did, reject the complainant’s complaints without first receiving that opinion, which, moreover, it had undertaken to obtain in the present case.
By acting as it did, Eurocontrol effectively decided to make its own finding, without the benefit of such an opinion, that the complainant’s complaint was unfounded and void because of what he had signed on 8 January 2019 and because he had not challenged the final decision of 14 January 2019. The Head of Human Resources thereby disregarded an essential safeguard in the right to an internal appeal, from which all officials of the Organisation are entitled to benefit (see Judgment 4167, under 3), thus rendering the impugned decision unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4310, 4506
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; patere legem;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In these circumstances the Tribunal’s case law recognises that it is appropriate to remit the matter to the Organisation to allow the internal appeal procedure to proceed to its conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 4499, consideration 13).
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, “one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of an internal appeal procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately filed, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies. Appeal bodies play a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from their composition and their extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation” (see Judgment 4168, consideration 2; see also Judgments 4499, consideration 13, 3067, consideration 20, and 2781, consideration 15). There is all the more justification for the input of the internal appeal body in a case such as the present one which involves technical aspects.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 4168, 4499
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; internal appeal; patere legem; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s settled case law states that an appeal submitted to the wrong authority within the prescribed time limit is not irreceivable on that account, because it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the authority which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 2017, consideration 6, 2345, consideration 1(b), 2882, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, 3423, consideration 9(b), 3424, consideration 8(b), 3425, consideration 7, and 3595, consideration 10). In such a situation, it is therefore not sufficient for the incompetent authority merely to inform the complainant that it is not competent and to suggest that she or he apply to the competent authority (see Judgment 3595, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2017, 2345, 2882, 3027, 3423, 3424, 3425, 3595
Keywords:
duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
Judgment 4517
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Contrary to what the complainant contends, the internal remedies provided for in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules are available to former staff members. While it is true that, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2892, considerations 6 to 8, and reaffirmed in several more judgments, only serving staff members previously had recourse to these remedies, in 2016 Staff Regulation 11.1 was amended specifically to extend access to former staff members. The previous case law is therefore obsolete [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892
Keywords:
former official; internal appeal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Although it is true that the request was sent to the Director of the Human Resources Management Department and not to the Secretary-General as Staff Rule 11.1.2 requires, under the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which rules of procedure must not be construed too pedantically, an internal appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, simply to forward it to the one which is competent to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, or 3424, consideration 8(b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027, 3424
Keywords:
duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]n the very specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the complainant’s advanced age and frail health, which plainly make it difficult in practice for her to access information concerning her rights, and the fact that, in this context, she could legitimately be unaware of the – still relatively recent – revision of the Staff Regulations extending the scope of the internal appeal procedure to former staff members, it was incumbent on ITU to ensure that the complainant was duly informed of the remedies and time limits for challenging the impugned decision, at least as from receipt of the abovementioned letter of 27 June 2020. Although the Tribunal’s case law does not ordinarily place such an obligation on organisations, ITU’s duty of care towards this former staff member required it to provide her with the necessary information on this point (for a comparable case involving a failure to state the means of redress and applicable time limits in the notification of a decision sent to a former staff member with a serious disability, see Judgment 3012, consideration 6). That requirement was not met by ITU, since – somewhat shockingly from a human perspective – the Organisation simply failed to communicate with the complainant from the beginning of the present case and, in particular, did not reply to either of the abovementioned letters sent to it on her behalf.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3012
Keywords:
duty of care; former official; internal appeal;
Judgment 4501
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, although the complainant did not formally lodge her protest pursuant to the aforementioned provisions until 12 April 2013, on 25 February 2013, that is, within the aforementioned two-month time-limit, she had sent an email to the Director of HRM in which she already challenged the refusal to extend her appointment until the end of her sick leave in a reasoned, clear and explicit fashion. Under the Tribunal’s case law, an email with this type of content must be regarded as an appeal which, even if not submitted in the prescribed manner, must be treated as such and, if need be, forwarded to the authority competent to deal with it (see, in particular, Judgment 3424, consideration 8(a) and (b), and the case law cited therein).
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t 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. Thus, except in cases where the staff member concerned forgoes the lodging of an internal appeal, an official should not in principle be denied the possibility of having the decision which she or he challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 2781, consideration 15, and 3067, consideration 20).This is especially so in this case since, under settled case law, the Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review concerning decisions to abolish posts, in the context of which it will not supplant the organisation’s assessment with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4099, consideration 3, or 4139, consideration 2), whereas the Appeals Board can undertake a more comprehensive review and can, in particular, issue recommendations on the basis of a different assessment or even on grounds of fairness or advisability (see, in particular, Judgment 3732, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein).
Lastly, in the event that the internal appeal procedure does not result in a final settlement of the dispute, the consideration by the Appeals Board of the circumstances in which the decision was taken to terminate the complainant’s appointment will be of great assistance by allowing the Tribunal to have before it the findings of fact and the items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of that body. Owing to its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the WCO and the broad investigative powers granted to it, the Appeals Board could provide valuable clarification of the circumstances of the instant case, which poses, beyond particular legal questions, sensitive questions of fact relating to the reasons for the contested abolition of post and possible opportunities for the complainant to be reassigned to a different post in the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3067, 3732, 4099, 4139
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Consideration 5
Extract:
In these highly exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant cannot be deemed – as officials of international organisations usually are – to have been fully aware of the means of redress available to her to challenge in due time the decision of which she had been informed and the applicable time limits. A medical certificate dated 15 January 2019 issued by the neuropsychiatrist responsible for the complainant’s psychotherapeutic care, which was submitted as evidence, confirms that she was “incapable of performing her administrative duties as normal during the period [under consideration] on account of her emotional and cognitive difficulties”. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the complainant, who had just resumed work for the Organization on the same day as she was notified of the decision in question, following a prolonged absence for the serious health reasons described above, was not able to keep in mind the content of the provisions of the Staff Manual concerning the dispute settlement procedure.
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, in order to ensure that the complainant had the opportunity to exercise effectively her right of appeal against that decision, which was clearly of paramount importance to her because it involved the termination of her appointment, it was the WCO’s responsibility to inform her explicitly about the means of redress available to challenge it and the time limits for so doing. Although the Tribunal’s case law does not ordinarily place such an obligation on organisations, the WCO’s duty of care towards the complainant required, in this case, that it provide her with the necessary information on this point (for a comparable case involving a failure to state the means of redress and applicable time limits in the notification of a decision sent to a former staff member with a serious disability, see Judgment 3012, consideration 6, or, for a case involving failure to provide such information to an elderly former staff member in fragile health affected by a decision significantly reducing the coverage of her costs of residence in a nursing home, Judgment 4517, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3012, 4517
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeal;
Judgment 4461
133rd Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that his […] email should be considered as a request for review, by relying on the “duty of care on an organisation which, in relation to the exercise of the right of appeal, obliges the organisation to help a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of the right” (see, for example, Judgments 2345, consideration 1, and 3754, consideration 11). However, according to these cases, to constitute an appeal the staff member must clearly express her or his intention to contest the decision, notwithstanding that the appeal might be addressed to the wrong authority. In this regard, the Tribunal’s case law has also long held that “for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein his or her intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting him or her and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way” (see Judgment 3423, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 3423, 3754
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 4431
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; general decision; internal appeal; right to strike; strike;
Consideration 4
Extract:
In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4429
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge a statement of the President of the European Patent Office alleging defamation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that 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 Judgment 3127, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3127
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 4426
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Committee was not precluded from applying its summary procedure to the appeal as the same rationale that underlies applying the summary procedure where an internal appeal is lodged out of time (avoiding procedural futility) also underlies the rationale for applying the summary procedure where a request for review is lodged out of time.
Keywords:
internal appeal; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision and, in particular, on all the organisation’s arguments (see Judgment 2598, consideration 6).
In this case, the Tribunal notes that, while the members of the Appeal Board met with the acting Chief of the Human Resources Management Department on 21 July 2017, it was only so that they could understand the ITU’s recruitment procedure. The meeting was thus merely an investigative measure, the purpose of which was to enable the Board to obtain information on the recruitment of officials in general, and not an interview relating specifically to the competition procedure at issue. Therefore, contrary to what the complainant submits, it was not a hearing where she was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed. Consequently, the plea regarding a breach of the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; internal appeal; internal appeals body;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
|
