Judgment No. 196
The claims put forward in the complaint and the rejoinder are dismissed.
In asking the Tribunal to rule on the question of reclassification before two successive decisions had been obtained from the Director-General, one on the recommendation of the Consultative Committee on Classification and the other on the recommendation of the appeals body, "the complainant has failed to observe the rule requiring that all internal remedies should have been exhausted."
absence of final decision; receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted
The appeal addressed to the Director-General was dismissed on 15 April. Whatever the date of the impugned decision, "the complainant could properly file an appeal as from 15 April [...] and consequently the claims he submitted to the Appeals Board on 27 April [...] were receivable. [H]ence the argument that the appeal was irreceivable affords no grounds for contending that the internal means of resisting the decision were not exhausted."
decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; time limit; start of time limit; date
The complainant seeks transfer to any D.1 post compatible with his qualifications and experience. As stated, the claim must be dismissed. "While [...] the complainant is entitled to resist the refusal to appoint him to a specific post which has been put up for competition, he cannot claim to be appointed to any D.1 post without the appointing authority having had the opportunity to appraise the various candidates who might have applied."
receivability of the complaint; cause of action; no cause of action; assignment; request for transfer
"The claim for payment of damages could be accepted only if the organization had caused injury to the complainant by violating its obligations. The Tribunal has not found that any such violation occurred, and therefore the complainant's claim for damages is without foundation."
organisation's duties; breach; condition
"The Tribunal cannot go beyond the claims submitted to it by the complainant within the time-limit of ninety days laid down by Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute. It follows that the claims put forward subsequently by the complainant, either in his rejoinder or in another memorandum, can be considered only insofar as they do not go beyond the claims submitted within the prescribed time-limit, since otherwise the purpose of the rule requiring the complainant to take action within ninety days on pain of irreceivability would be frustrated."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
claim; new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; condition