Judgment 451
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
When an appeals body cannot examine a case "in the second instance" because no decision had been taken by the lower body, there is no obligation on an appellant to explore ways of putting pressure on the latter to discharge its duty. The complaint is receivable.
Keywords:
consequence; failure to answer claim; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The rule that a complaint shall be receivable only if the internal means of redress have been exhausted is not a hard and fast one even though the Statute does not allow any derogation from it. If a complainant does all in her power to procure a decision and if nevertheless the internal appeals body either by its statements or by its conduct evinces an intention not to give a decision within a reasonable period, justice requires that an exception should be made. [...] When the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, such an intention can be inferred."
Keywords:
administrative delay; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 421
45th Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Facts (D)
Extract:
"the [organisation] observes that the complainant filed his complaint before the 60 days specified in article vii, paragraph 3, of the statute of the tribunal had expired. since, however, the 60 days have now elapsed and he has not yet had a decision taken on his claim, the [organisation] will not contest the receivability of his complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ILOAT STATUTE
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 408
44th Session, 1980
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
A complainant may appeal directly to the Tribunal "provided the appeals body cannot or will not give a decision within a reasonable period. That it cannot or will not do so must, however, be quite clear from the circumstances. Only by way of exception will the Tribunal allow that the condition is met."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; internal appeals body; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 336
40th Session, 1978
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Assuming that the letter in question constitutes a claim requiring a decision, sixty days had elapsed without a decision being taken by the organisation. "But a complainant is not thereby obliged to treat silence as an adverse decision. He may prefer to continue or to resume the correspondence in the hope of obtaining a favourable decision. If he continues or reopens the case in this way, he must wait for another period of sixty days' silence before he can treat his claim as rejected. Since the complainant has not obtained a final decision [...] the complaint is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 292
38th Session, 1977
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The article was amended by an office note. "The complainant's request for an interpretation of [the article] is a request for a decision relating to him; it may be made at any time and is not subject to any time limit. [The administration] never gave any decision upon the interpretation of [this] article [...] or upon the relationship to it of the office notices; this [...] is the substantial question in this case."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; decision; failure to answer claim; interpretation; provision; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 279
37th Session, 1976
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
According to paragraph 3 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, "where the complainant alleges failure to take a decision, or an implied decision to dismiss his appeal, the period of ninety days shall run from the expiration of the sixty days allowed for the taking of the decision by the administration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 272
36th Session, 1976
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The request which the complainant addressed to the organization was never either accepted or rejected. She then filed a complaint with the Tribunal and "based it on the silence of the organization and on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute. The organization does not dispute that the complaint falls within Article VII and accordingly, so far as that article is concerned, the complaint is receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 263
35th Session, 1975
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal prescribes the possibility of appealing to the Tribunal where the administration fails to take a decision upon a claim within sixty days from the notification of that claim. [A provision] of the Staff Regulations [...] lays down the same rule in a different form. It provides that if a claim addressed to the Director-General or the Administrative Council has not been decided upon within sixty days of the date of its notification or submission it is deemed to be dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 255
34th Session, 1975
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The letter from the chief of personnel "is not expressed as a decision but as a letter enclosing an appraisal report [...] The complainant however did not wish to disagree with the report; he wished to contend that it was not an appraisal report at all and to claim what he called a proper report. He was within his rights in taking this course by his letter [...] and since the Director-General has failed to act upon it paragraph 3 of Article VII applies."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; omission; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Considerations
Extract:
On 23 January the complainant received an appraisal report. On 20 March he requested that a proper appraisal be made. The letter of 23 January "is not expressed as a decision but as a letter enclosing an appraisal report [...] The complainant [...] did not wish to disagree with the report; he wished to contend that it was not an appraisal report at all and to obtain what he called a proper report. He was within his rights in taking this course by his letter of 20 March; and since the Director-General has failed to act upon it paragraph 3 of Article VII applies."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; failure to answer claim; omission; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 185
27th Session, 1971
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant inquired whether a refusal decision was final. the absence of a reply from the administration must be considered, by virtue of a general rule of law, as a refusal of the claim. The complainant ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in the Staff Rules to secure "a decision by the Director-General, which decision could alone be impugned before the Administrative Tribunal." [The procedure provides for appeal at the regional level and subsequently at headquarters.]
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; enforcement; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations
Extract:
The regional administration failed to reply because it made a reply conditional on a matter unrelated to the request. "The position thus taken up by the administration misled [the complainant] and prevented him from following the procedure laid down [in the Staff Rules]. There is all the more reason for taking account of his error inasmuch as the [...] Rules do not mention the general rule of law [...] whereby the silence of the administration after a certain period is equivalent to rejection of a claim."
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; negligence; organisation; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Considerations
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal must be read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of the same article. "[T]he provision can apply only if a complainant has exhausted all internal means of resisting the decision open to him, and if he is impugning either an explicit decision or the implicit decision resulting from the failure of the Director-General of the organization, the final competent authority, to give a ruling on his claim."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
condition; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 108
17th Session, 1967
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
