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: 99

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



  • 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; 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

    Considerations 17- 18

    Extract:

    The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
    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).
    In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
    The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
    It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; 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
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; 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

    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 of the execution of a judgment;



  • 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, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 2573

    Keywords:

    case law; contract; decision; 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; 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

    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;



  • Judgment 2823


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant relies on his salary slips, that reliance is misplaced. It is correct, as pointed out in Judgment 1798, that «pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal». However, they cannot be challenged as new decisions if they merely confirm a decision that was taken at some earlier time and outside the time limits in which an appeal may be brought."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; decision; individual decision; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2820


    107th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784

    Keywords:

    decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 2791


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently held that individual members of the Staff Committee must have the power to file suit as representatives of that body. The rationale is that if the Staff Committee is not able to file suit, the only way to preserve common rights and interests of staff is to allow individual officials to act as representatives."

    Keywords:

    case law; collective rights; official; right of appeal; staff representative; staff union; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2750


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    "Although [IAEA] Staff Regulation 4.02 provides that no notice is necessary in the case of expiry at the due date of a fixed-term or short-term appointment, the duty of an organisation to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of staff members requires that reasonable notice be given, 'particularly so that they may exercise their right to appeal and take whatever action may be necessary' (see Judgments 2104 and 2531)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.02
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2531

    Keywords:

    contract; date; fixed-term; good faith; notice; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; separation from service; short-term; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2722


    105th Session, 2008
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, 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. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2720


    105th Session, 2008
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "[W]here a judgment has been rendered against an international organisation in a dispute with one of its staff members, the circulation after delivery of the said judgment of a message defaming the complainant constitutes a very serious breach of the obligations incumbent on the organisation in its relations with its staff members. Such conduct disregards not only the [...] duty to respect the staff member's dignity and reputation but also - and this is an even more serious matter - the duty to safeguard the free exercise of his right to file a complaint with the Tribunal, which implies, inter alia, that the success of such a complaint shall not entail punitive or retaliatory measures against him."

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 2715


    104th Session, 2008
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Secretary General of the Organization decided to follow the Appeals Board's recommendations and thus to award the complainant compensation. By a letter of 2 October 2006 he notified the complainant that he nevertheless intended to make payment of the compensation subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce the exercise of all means of appeal against the WCO. "[T]he Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the Secretary General's letter of 2 October 2006 contained an unlawful clause which should definitely be censured, in that its purpose was to make the actual payment of the sum in question subject to an undertaking from the complainant that he would renounce all means of appeals.
    An international organisation commits a serious breach of the general principles of law by violating, through such conduct, international civil servants' right of appeal, especially to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; allowance; condition; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; payment; right of appeal; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2610


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "While it is highly desirable that staff representatives should be allowed to participate in operations to determine their colleagues' remuneration, this can in no way affect the right of each staff member to avail himself or herself of the means of redress which are open to him or her and which constitute a fundamental safeguard for international civil servants. The ICSC is therefore mistaken in believing that it can rely on the theory of estoppel vis-ą-vis the complainants by arguing that staff representatives are supposed to act on behalf of all the members of the personnel and that 'their actions should be considered as legally attributable to each and every one of the staff they represent'."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; general principle; icsc decision; internal appeal; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard; salary; scale; staff representative;

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top