L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > conversion d'un contrat

Judgment No. 3829

Decision

The complaint and the applications to intervene are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

non-renewal of contract; conversion of a contract; complaint dismissed

Consideration 2

Extract:

The complaint, which was initially directed against an implied rejection, must be regarded as impugning the explicit decision [...].

Keywords

impugned decision

Consideration 3

Extract:

It is necessary to examine whether the complaint satisfies the requirements of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal insofar as it is directed against the decision of 19 August 2013.
According to that provision, “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless the decision impugned is a final decision and the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. The only exceptions allowed under the Tribunal’s case law to this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted are cases where staff regulations provide that decisions taken by the executive head of an organisation are not subject to the internal appeal procedure, where there is an inordinate and inexcusable delay in the internal appeal procedure although the person concerned has done everything that could be expected of them to try to obtain a final decision, where for specific reasons connected with the personal status of the complainant she or he does not have access to the internal appeal body or, lastly, where the parties have mutually agreed to forgo this requirement that internal means of redress must have been exhausted (see Judgment 2912, under 6).
In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law regarding compliance with this requirement to exhaust internal means of redress, a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see Judgment 3420, under 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2912, 3420

Keywords

internal remedies exhausted

Consideration 4

Extract:

[I]t must be recalled that, according to the case law, to satisfy the requirement that internal means of redress have been exhausted laid down in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant must not only follow the prescribed internal procedure for appeal, but must follow it properly and in particular observe any time limit that may be set for the purpose of that procedure (see, in particular, Judgments 1469, under 16, and 3296, under 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1469, 3296

Keywords

internal remedies exhausted

Consideration 6

Extract:

According to the Tribunal’s case law, for a letter addressed to an organisation to constitute an appeal, it is sufficient that the person concerned clearly expresses therein her or his intention to challenge the decision adversely affecting her or him and that the request thus formulated can be granted in some meaningful way (see Judgment 3068, under 16, and the case law cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3068

Keywords

internal appeal

Consideration 7

Extract:

As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663

Keywords

internal appeal; time limit; late appeal

Consideration 8

Extract:

In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that [the Organisation]’s defence is “audacious and vexatious”. On this basis, she asks that the Organisation be ordered to pay her damages [...]. The Tribunal is, however, of the view that the Organisation’s pleadings do not exceed the boundaries of the freedom of expression that the parties must be accorded during legal proceedings.

Keywords

reply



 
Dernière mise à jour: 26.05.2020 ^ haut