Judgment No. 277
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Although the Tribunal must determine whether its own time limit for filing a complaint has been respected, it will not review the observance of procedural rules in internal bodies. It merely notes that such bodies have heard the appeal. The most that can be said is that matters would have been different had the Director-General in his final decision expressed reservations on the propriety of the appeals procedure."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; time limit; judicial review
Consideration 1
Extract:
The organisation maintains that the internal appeal was time-barred and therefore irreceivable. "According to Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute [the Tribunal] is required to consider merely whether the internal means of redress have been exhausted - in this case whether the Director-General's" original decision led to a recommendation by the Appeals Committee. That condition is undoubtedly fulfilled, and the complaint is therefore receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords
complaint; decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; recommendation; time bar; judicial review
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is immaterial that the Appeals Committee may have erred in hearing the appeal. The fact is that it gave its views and consequently the complainant had recourse to the internal means of redress available to him."
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mistaken hearing of merits; recommendation; time limit; time bar; consequence
Consideration 2
Extract:
The statement merely says that the Council has adopted a series of proposals the purpose of which is to bring the salary scales and related benefits in line with those applicable in the European Communities. "That is a mere statement of intent which did not imply any firm undertaking by the Institute and which consequently did not create rights upon which the staff may rely. Hence the complainant cannot rely upon that statement to support his claim to entitlement under the provisions applicable to the staff of the European Communities."
Keywords
statement of intent; law of european communities; rule of another organisation; enforcement; salary; pension; executive body; binding character; proposal; right
Consideration 1
Extract:
The organisation contends that the complainant first made the material claim in the complaint he filed with the Tribunal. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant merely repeats in different terms the claim made in his letter [to the Director-General]."
Keywords
new claim; receivability of the complaint
| 
