Internal appeal (86, 87, 668, 695, 752, 783,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeal
Total judgments found: 455
< previous | 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 4140
128th Session, 2019
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct during her probation period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal has often recalled, a staff member may not on her or his own initiative evade the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress prior to lodging a complaint with the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 2811, considerations 10 and 11, 3399, consideration 4, 3706, consideration 3, or 4056, consideration 5). A complainant cannot, in particular, claim to have respected this obligation simply because she or he has – as the complainant sought to do, in this case, by means of her letter of 3 December 2016 – sent an ultimatum to the decision-making authority to no avail (see Judgments 3302, consideration 4, or 3554, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2811, 3302, 3399, 3554, 3706, 4056
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organization is under an obligation, in view of its duty of care towards its staff, to assist them when they make mistakes in exercising their right of appeal. In particular, if a staff member has mistakenly addressed an appeal to the wrong body, that body is required to forward the appeal to the competent body (see, for example, Judgments 2345, consideration 1, 3423, consideration 9(b), 3754, consideration 11, or 3928, consideration 14).
This case law [...] aims at preventing the procedural rules from wrongly becoming a trap for a staff member who misunderstands the procedure for exercising her or his right of appeal [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 3423, 3754, 3928
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeal;
Judgment 4139
128th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he fact, also relied on by the defendant, that the Executive Director had dismissed the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Head of the Human Resources Department – which he could only have done by disavowing the latter and putting the organization in a delicate position – did not imply that he would necessarily have taken the same initial decision that she had.
Keywords:
delegated authority; executive head; internal appeal;
Judgment 4103
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him mission status during the first six months of his assignment to a field post.
Consideration 1
Extract:
[A] complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits. As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective (see Judgment 3758, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Appeals Board did express an opinion on the complainant’s pleas concerning [...], it did not, however, mention the many other pleas of a procedural nature raised by the complainant. [...] Thus, the Appeals Board did not examine all of the complainant’s pleas. In addition, the Director-General did not address those pleas in her decision of 2 August 2016 either. Accordingly, the right of the complainant to an effective internal appeal was denied. The decision impugned is thus unlawful, which justifies it being set aside.
Keywords:
impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 4040
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The word “appeal” can comprehend a range of diverse procedures. In some contexts it will be a reference to a complete reconsideration of the subject matter of the appeal without regard to the views of the body from which the appeal is brought. In such a case, the appeal body makes a decision or assessment afresh. In other contexts it might involve an assessment of whether an error was made by the body from whom the appeal is brought and in the absence of error, the appeal will be unsuccessful. If error is identified, the role of the appeal body may be to make the decision or assessment itself or it may be to remit the matter to the body from whom the appeal was brought. Ultimately, what is comprehended by the word “appeal” must be determined by reference to the context in the normative legal document in which the appeal process is established.
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 4037
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, officials are entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal body within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3336, under 6). In this case, the Tribunal considers that while the complainant was partly responsible for the delay of which she complains insofar as she had requested and obtained a two-month extension of the time limit for submitting her rejoinder, the internal proceedings lasted an excessively long time having regard to the nature of the case. Their length caused the complainant moral injury, entitling her to damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 4031
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the step level he was placed in upon implementation of a new local salary scale for General Service staff in New Delhi, India.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submits that he suffered injury as a consequence of the “inordinate, inexplicable and inexcusable” delay in the internal appeal process. He seeks moral damages on this account. The Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows in Judgment 3160, consideration 17:
“The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; moral injury; patere legem; reasonable time;
Judgment 4028
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[W]hen an internal appeal is tainted with a flaw – other than late submission – which prevents it from being considered as properly filed, it is for the appeals body, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the appellant to correct the appeal by granting her or him a reasonable period of time in which to do so (see Judgments 3943, under 5, and 3127, under 10)[.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3127, 3943
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is apparent from these conclusions and recommendations that the Appeal Board did not give an opinion on the merits of the appeal. As a result, the complainants were deprived of an essential safeguard inherent in their right of appeal, namely that the Secretary-General be informed by the Board’s opinion when taking his final decision.
It follows that the impugned decision is unlawful as it was not taken in the light of such an opinion.
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the internal appeal body’s consideration of the appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notable before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found in Judgment 3424, under 11, that, “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). [...] [T]he [a]ppeal body 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.”
In this case, the Appeal Board’s report, consisting of five essential points, does not provide full details of the disputed competition procedures, since the Board merely presents its findings without listing the complainant’s arguments or providing a preliminary discussion allowing its position to be understood. This very succinct report does not enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether the Board considered the disputed competition procedures in sufficient depth. Since the plea of a breach of the right to an effective internal appeal is well founded, the impugned decision must be set aside for that reason, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas concerning the lawfulness of the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2811, 3424
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; right of appeal;
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 10 &14
Extract:
As the defendant organisation notes, the complainant’s “request” to have his fixed-term contract redefined was not submitted to the Advisory Board. It is true that in his internal appeal the complainant asked only to have his fixed-term contract extended for one year. The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant’s claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas, as the present complainant does, before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5). [...]
As stated in consideration 10, [..] the Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686
Keywords:
internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3999
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The time that elapsed from the filing of the internal appeal until the Appeal Board issued its conclusions was approximately 16 months. This included a period during which extensions were granted with respect to the filing of the submissions while there were attempts to reach a settlement. The Director General’s final decision was notified to the complainant within the time limit provided by the Staff Regulations and Rules. In these circumstances the Tribunal does not consider the duration of the internal appeal proceedings to be excessive.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3993
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the direct appointment of Mr E. to the position of Legal Adviser.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant proffers various submissions to support his contention that the email of 2 December 2013, which he obviously received, did not satisfy the requirement of notification. [...]
Importantly, however, the complainant submits that the email of 2 December 2013 left it unclear which post Mr E. was to fill, and that he was only properly informed of the decision concerning the appointment of Mr E. when he received the email confirmation from the Human Resources Branch [...]. The Tribunal considers that, while the email of 2 December 2013 notified the complainant of the appointment of Mr E. as Legal Adviser, it did not specify whether the appointment was at the D-1 level, which the complainant held, or at the D-2 level, for which the complainant wished to apply. It was by the email of 10 April 2014, which confirmed implicitly that the appointment was at the D-2 level, that the complainant was properly notified. Accordingly, his request for review [...] was made within the required time limit. It was therefore receivable.
Keywords:
internal appeal;
Judgment 3966
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the behaviour of his director which he characterises as harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an award of punitive damages for the delay will be dismissed. The Tribunal has stated, for example in Judgment 2935, consideration 5, that an award of punitive damages can be made only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation’s conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith. There is no evidence that the EPO acted in bad faith with respect to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings. However, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 6,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2935
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; punitive damages;
Judgment 3965
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO did not properly address or investigate his claim of harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The President’s decision, communicated by the letter of 13 October 2009, was based on the Ombudsman’s comments, which did not comply with Article 11 of Circular No. 286, and the decision itself did not correspond to what Article 12 of the Circular required. Most importantly, the decision of 13 October 2009 did not clearly reject the complainant’s harassment complaint or determine any other course of action on it. The complainant was therefore not only deprived of his right to have his complaint dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, but was also misled as to the possibilities of challenging a decision. Accordingly, the decision of 13 October 2009 must be set aside. As this decision was ambiguous and misleading, the filing of the internal appeal on 19 April 2010 comes within the scope of the exceptions that the Tribunal has established for accepting a late internal appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1466, consideration 5, 2722, consideration 3, and 3406, consideration 13). To the extent that the IAC’s majority opinion and the impugned decision of the President were based on the argument that the appeal was irreceivable, they are tainted with an error of law and the impugned decision of 14 February 2012 will therefore be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3963
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the Organisation has breached its duty of care in relation to possible taxation of the invalidity allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant also requests compensation in the amount of 5,000 euros for the moral injury caused by the excessive duration of the proceedings which, he contends, lasted “more than [six] years”. It must be noted that the duration alleged by the complainant includes phases after October 2007 when informal requests were made. However, for the purpose of determining the duration of the proceedings, the starting date must be deemed to be that on which the internal appeal was filed, namely 7 May 2010. As the date on which it was dismissed was 5 February 2014, the internal appeal proceedings lasted almost four years and not “more than [six] years”. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers that this duration is still excessive. The EPO has not explained why it needed virtually two years as from the date on which the internal appeal was filed to submit its position thereupon. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the complainant must be awarded moral damages in the amount of 3,500 euros for the inordinate length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Principle has it that the right to lodge an internal appeal is not lost if the appeal is sent to the wrong body. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 3027, consideration 7:
“[I]n Judgment 1832, under 6, it was held that a staff member did not lose his right to appeal simply because the appeal was sent to the wrong internal body. It was said in that case: ‘If the staff member appeals in time but makes the wrong choice between Council and President, there is nothing in the rules to prevent correction of the mistake. After all, both Council and President are authorities within one and the same Organisation.’.”
This statement makes it plain that in order to rely on the foregoing principle, the appeal, in whatever form and to whomever addressed, must be lodged in time.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal;
Judgment 3945
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420
Keywords:
internal appeal; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3943
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek a redefinition of their employment relationships.
Considerations 5 and 9
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that when an internal appeal is tainted with a flaw – other than late submission – which prevents it from being considered as properly filed, it is for the appeals body, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting her or him a reasonable period of time in which to do so (for a similar case, see Judgment 3127, under 10).
[...]
In the particular circumstances of the case, and given the nature of the flaw that affected the complainants’ internal appeals, there is no reason to award them moral damages in respect of the unlawfulness of the impugned decisions or the delay in processing their appeals. Nor will they be awarded costs.
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | next >
|
