ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Right of appeal (104,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right of appeal
Total judgments found: 88

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >

  • Judgment 4121


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; pay slip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 4081


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director General not to allow him to carry out an assignment outside the Organisation.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the case law, the reasons for a decision need not be stated in the decision itself, but may be contained in other documents communicated to the staff member concerned; they may even be set forth in briefs or submissions produced for the first time before the Tribunal, provided that the complainant’s right of appeal is fully respected (see, for example, Judgments 1289, consideration 9, 1817, consideration 6, 2112, consideration 5, or 2927, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1289, 1817, 2112, 2927

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; grounds; motivation; right of appeal; right to reply;



  • 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.’.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    To contest the complainant’s assertion of being a “competent and loyal” staff member, the UPU improperly cites the fact that the complainant had filed two previous complaints with the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that staff members have the right to bring complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of their appointment and of the provisions of the Service Regulations, in accordance with the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. International organisations shall not hold the proper exercising of that right against the staff member.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    conduct; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 3503


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the lawfulness of the appointment of two staff members to grade G-6 posts.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; right of appeal; vacancy;



  • Judgment 3127


    113th Session, 2012
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]he 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 he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on that point Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3068, under 20)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781, 3068

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3119


    113th Session, 2012
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Where the staff regulations of an international organisation do not enable former staff members to avail themselves of the internal means of redress, the organisation cannot legally decide to terminate an appointment without giving the person concerned sufficient time to lodge an internal appeal, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to such an appeal."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; reasonable time; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination;



  • Judgment 3067


    112th Session, 2012
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "[T]he right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority. Consequently, save 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 he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body (see, for example, on this point, Judgment 2781, under 15)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3064


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; complaint allowed; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;



  • Judgment 3041


    111th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
    "The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3032


    111th Session, 2011
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; international civil servant; organisation's duties; procedure; right of appeal; safeguard; vacancy;



  • Judgment 3003


    111th Session, 2011
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory opinion; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "To accept that an organisation can be released, through the grant of a stay of execution, from the obligation to execute a judgment unfavourable to itself, on the grounds that it has challenged the validity of the judgment under Article XII of the Statute [of the Tribunal], would not only constitute a major exception to the application of [the] case law but would also, above all, seriously impair the legitimate right of the staff member concerned to benefit from immediate application of the judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complainant; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; grounds; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; right; right of appeal; suspension;



  • Judgment 2993


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "It may well be that where an organisation conceals the existence of a cause of action, time will run only from such time as the cause of action is discovered."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; right of appeal; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 2980


    110th Session, 2011
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Competition considered procedurally flawed because candidates were added to the shortlist after the evaluation process had begun.
    "[T]he Tribunal rules on the basis of the specific claims against an administrative decision in a particular complaint, which means that if an alleged flaw is found not to have existed, that is not to say that the administrative decision was lawful and that no flaw exists which could be contested in a new complaint within the established time limits."

    Keywords:

    claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; flaw; res judicata; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2959


    110th Session, 2011
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he existence of an established practice of directly appointing the Chief of Cabinet is not relevant, as a practice which is in violation of a rule cannot have the effect of modifying the rule itself, and the fact that employees may be aware of such a practice does not prevent them from exercising their right to impugn a decision based on that practice whenever it affects them."

    Keywords:

    breach; practice; precedence of rules; provision; right of appeal; written rule;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Quashing of a direct appointment to the post of Chief of Cabinet.
    "[T]he rights of employees of international organisations to impugn decisions regarding appointments do not depend on their chances of successful appointment (see Judgments 1549, under 9, and 1272, under 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272, 1549

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; cause of action; decision; right; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2916


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[E]ven though notification of non-renewal is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute [...]. Accordingly, it may be challenged in the same way as any other administrative decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 2573

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2903


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 to 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
    "The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
    "In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
    "Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;



  • Judgment 2899


    108th Session, 2010
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal recently confirmed in Judgment 2781, under 15, 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. Consequently, save 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 he or she challenges effectively reviewed by the competent appeal body."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2781

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; right of appeal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 2882


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2840


    107th Session, 2009
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing the internal appeal process only refer to a «staff member» and not to a «former staff member». However, Staff Rule 1240.2, which stipulates the conditions for recourse to the Tribunal, does not refer to a «staff member» but to a «person». [...] This is also consistent with Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, according to which the Tribunal shall be open to an official, even if his employment has ceased."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal finds that under the WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process. In these circumstances, a former staff member has recourse to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2582 and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tribunal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top